Delhi High Court Orders ESIC to Provide Covid-19 Relief Benefits to Widow, Clarifying That Special Incentives Are Not Considered Wages.
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) to provide benefits under the ESIC Covid-19 Scheme to a widow. The court noted that special incentives given during the pandemic should not be counted as part of a worker’s wages. It overturned the rejection of the widow’s claim and instructed ESIC to grant her the benefits, stating that the deceased worker’s special incentive during the Covid-19 crisis should not affect eligibility for the scheme. The Covid-19 Relief Scheme was designed to support the families of insured individuals who died from the virus. Justice Girish Kathpalia emphasized that these incentives were meant to help workers cover extra costs for items like masks and sanitizers during the pandemic, and they were temporary measures to keep the economy running. He stated that treating these incentives as wages would unfairly deny relief to the widows of those who worked through the crisis.
Advocate Jitender Nath Pathak represented the widow, while Advocate K.P. Mavi represented ESIC. The widow filed a writ petition after her claims were denied twice by ESIC. Her husband passed away from Covid-19, and although he was insured under the Employees’ State Insurance Act of 1948, ESIC rejected the claim because his total salary, including the special incentive, was above the monthly limit set by the Act.
The High Court observed that ESIC had consistently deducted contributions from the worker’s salary until his death, and there was no dispute about his insured status. The main question was whether the incentive could be considered ‘wages’ under Section 2(22) of the Act.
The Court stated, “Considering the supportive nature of the Covid Scheme and the label of the monthly payment of Rs. 2,674/-, I find it unreasonable to classify this amount as part of the monthly wages, which would exclude the petitioner from the social welfare benefits of the scheme. Clearly, the Rs. 2,674/- was a special incentive given to the worker during the Covid pandemic, and it was provided only for the four months before his death. Even during those months, the respondents continued to deduct ESI contributions from his salary.” The Court emphasized that the ESI Act is designed for social welfare, and its rules should be interpreted favorably for the dependents. The Bench noted that the special incentive was a temporary support to help workers manage extra expenses during the pandemic, like masks, sanitizers, and transportation, ensuring they could continue working.
As a result, the Court concluded that “the petitioner, being the widow of the worker who sadly passed away from Covid, should not be denied the benefits of the Covid Scheme… Therefore, the petition is granted, and the respondents’ decision to deny the Covid Scheme benefits to the petitioner is overturned. The respondents must provide all benefits under the Covid Scheme to the petitioner within four weeks.” Thus, the High Court approved the petition.
Cause Title: Godambari Raturi v. Employee State Insurance Corporation Ltd. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:8647)
