<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1997 (9) TMI 621 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189764</link>
    <description>Section 53 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 creates an absolute bar against an insured employee recovering compensation or damages from the employer or any other person under the Workmen&#039;s Compensation Act, tort, or any other law for an employment injury. The Court held that the statutory wording is wide enough to exclude a damages claim in tort and that the scheme of the Act requires the remedy under the Act to govern such employment-related claims. Relying on Trehan, the Court rejected any dilution of this bar by reference to the Act&#039;s beneficial character. The employee&#039;s damages claim was therefore not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2017 17:53:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=455825" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 621 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189764</link>
      <description>Section 53 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 creates an absolute bar against an insured employee recovering compensation or damages from the employer or any other person under the Workmen&#039;s Compensation Act, tort, or any other law for an employment injury. The Court held that the statutory wording is wide enough to exclude a damages claim in tort and that the scheme of the Act requires the remedy under the Act to govern such employment-related claims. Relying on Trehan, the Court rejected any dilution of this bar by reference to the Act&#039;s beneficial character. The employee&#039;s damages claim was therefore not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189764</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>