Dear Sir,
Please clarify if a contractor engaged by a PSU for performing a job/contract and the contractor is engaging his regular workmen. In this scenario:
(a) Is the contractor supposed to obtain a license under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970?
(b) Is the contractor bound by the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970?
(c) What will be the liabilities of the principal employer in this case?
Thank you.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
Please clarify if a contractor engaged by a PSU for performing a job/contract and the contractor is engaging his regular workmen. In this scenario:
(a) Is the contractor supposed to obtain a license under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970?
(b) Is the contractor bound by the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970?
(c) What will be the liabilities of the principal employer in this case?
Thank you.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
it does not make any difference whether the workmen is hired for that specific job or contractor execute the job through his own employees after all the work has been done by workmen hired by contractor, and the workmen hired by the contractor always shall be employee of contractors itself whether hired for your establishment or other one.
kindly go through the definition of Contract Labour & Contract provided under CLRA Act.
(b) a workman shall be deemed to be employed as “contract labour” in or in connection with the work of an establishment when he is hired in or in connection with such work by or through a contractor, with or without the knowledge of the principal employer;
(c) “contractor”, in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor;
it is clear from above definition, that the job contract also covered by the Act "undertakes to produced certain/given result for establishmnet".
Contractor shall be covered by the Act, need to obtain license and comply with other provisions of the act.
Principal Employer also need to get registration certificate and other compliance as per act.
regards
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
99kindly go through the definition of Contract Labour & Contract provided under CLRA Act.
(b) a workman shall be deemed to be employed as “contract labour” in or in connection with the work of an establishment when he is hired in or in connection with such work by or through a contractor, with or without the knowledge of the principal employer;
(c) “contractor”, in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor;
it is clear from above definition, that the job contract also covered by the Act "undertakes to produced certain/given result for establishmnet".
Contractor shall be covered by the Act, need to obtain license and comply with other provisions of the act.
Principal Employer also need to get registration certificate and other compliance as per act.
regards
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you, sir, for the reply.
Actually, here in a PSU, we are facing such an issue. Some contract workmen were working at the site for a long period and were performing the same nature of job. The contractors would change, but the contract workmen would remain the same. Recently, a new contractor was engaged for the said job, and he says that he will engage his own employees and will not be able to engage these contract laborers who were working previously at the site. Now, these contract laborers are fighting for the same job at the same site as a matter of their right.
Please guide on what can be done in this case as per CLRA.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Actually, here in a PSU, we are facing such an issue. Some contract workmen were working at the site for a long period and were performing the same nature of job. The contractors would change, but the contract workmen would remain the same. Recently, a new contractor was engaged for the said job, and he says that he will engage his own employees and will not be able to engage these contract laborers who were working previously at the site. Now, these contract laborers are fighting for the same job at the same site as a matter of their right.
Please guide on what can be done in this case as per CLRA.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Member,
The issue raised by you is very complex and difficult. As you will see in The Contract Labour (R & A) Act, 1970, there is no provision on the issue of whom the contractor should engage as his labor/worker. There also appears to be no provision on whether the new contractor will engage workers of the previous contractor. In such a situation, as narrated by you, the question will arise later on about the regularization of the contract employees as direct employees of the principal employer.
On the above issue, there are some judgments of the Honorable Supreme Court of India, some of which are mentioned as follows:
- Deena Nath vs. National Fertilizers Ltd, 1992 LLR 46 (SC).
- Steel Authority of India vs. Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 3229.
- Gujarat Electricity Board vs. Hind Mazdoor Sabha, 1995, LLR 552, SC.
- R.K. Panda vs. Steel Authority of India (1994), 69 FLR 256 (SC).
- Bhilwara Dugdh Utpadak Sahakaris Ltd. vs. Vinod Kumar Sharma Dead by LRS & ORS (01.09.2011).
If desired, you can study the above judgments.
With regards,
Harsh Kumar Mehta
From India, Noida
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The issue raised by you is very complex and difficult. As you will see in The Contract Labour (R & A) Act, 1970, there is no provision on the issue of whom the contractor should engage as his labor/worker. There also appears to be no provision on whether the new contractor will engage workers of the previous contractor. In such a situation, as narrated by you, the question will arise later on about the regularization of the contract employees as direct employees of the principal employer.
On the above issue, there are some judgments of the Honorable Supreme Court of India, some of which are mentioned as follows:
- Deena Nath vs. National Fertilizers Ltd, 1992 LLR 46 (SC).
- Steel Authority of India vs. Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 3229.
- Gujarat Electricity Board vs. Hind Mazdoor Sabha, 1995, LLR 552, SC.
- R.K. Panda vs. Steel Authority of India (1994), 69 FLR 256 (SC).
- Bhilwara Dugdh Utpadak Sahakaris Ltd. vs. Vinod Kumar Sharma Dead by LRS & ORS (01.09.2011).
If desired, you can study the above judgments.
With regards,
Harsh Kumar Mehta
From India, Noida
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Clarity Seeker,
Your Query: Some contract workmen were working at the site for a long period and were performing the same nature of job. The contractors would change but the contract labor/workmen would remain the same. Recently, a new contractor was engaged for the said job, and he said that he would engage his own C Labors and not those CLs who were working previously at the site on the Muster Roll of the previous contractor(s). Now, those CLs are fighting for the same job at the same site as a matter of their right. Please guide.
Position: A contractor is free to employ, on his/her Muster Roll, an individual person he/she finds most suitable to work in the designation required for the given work-on-contract after obtaining the mandatory license (Labor License) on the basis of Form V issued by the Principal Employer/Establishment.
No CL has any legally maintainable claim that the succeeding contractor must employ him/her in the said work of the establishment (now to be carried on by the new contractor/contracting firm) because of the fact that he/she had worked on the same work of the establishment on the Muster Rolls of another contractor or contractors for any stretch of time.
There is often this misunderstanding that CLs can claim continuity in a work of the establishment carried-on-contract. It is not so. The object of the Act was to streamline through regulation & abolition, the work to be or not to be outsourced.
CLs have been "regularized" by the judiciary only when it was found without a doubt that the work-of-the establishment for which a contractor was engaged and through him/her the CLs were employed was a 'subterfuge', a 'sham'.
The moot point is to ascertain whether that work-in-question is of permanent and perennial nature or not as defined in CL (Regulation & Abolition) Act and the rules made thereunder. It's time for you/your PSU organization to honestly answer in all earnestness this question.
Harsh Kumar Sharan
Kritarth Consulting Pvt. Ltd
16.11.13, 9:45 a.m.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Your Query: Some contract workmen were working at the site for a long period and were performing the same nature of job. The contractors would change but the contract labor/workmen would remain the same. Recently, a new contractor was engaged for the said job, and he said that he would engage his own C Labors and not those CLs who were working previously at the site on the Muster Roll of the previous contractor(s). Now, those CLs are fighting for the same job at the same site as a matter of their right. Please guide.
Position: A contractor is free to employ, on his/her Muster Roll, an individual person he/she finds most suitable to work in the designation required for the given work-on-contract after obtaining the mandatory license (Labor License) on the basis of Form V issued by the Principal Employer/Establishment.
No CL has any legally maintainable claim that the succeeding contractor must employ him/her in the said work of the establishment (now to be carried on by the new contractor/contracting firm) because of the fact that he/she had worked on the same work of the establishment on the Muster Rolls of another contractor or contractors for any stretch of time.
There is often this misunderstanding that CLs can claim continuity in a work of the establishment carried-on-contract. It is not so. The object of the Act was to streamline through regulation & abolition, the work to be or not to be outsourced.
CLs have been "regularized" by the judiciary only when it was found without a doubt that the work-of-the establishment for which a contractor was engaged and through him/her the CLs were employed was a 'subterfuge', a 'sham'.
The moot point is to ascertain whether that work-in-question is of permanent and perennial nature or not as defined in CL (Regulation & Abolition) Act and the rules made thereunder. It's time for you/your PSU organization to honestly answer in all earnestness this question.
Harsh Kumar Sharan
Kritarth Consulting Pvt. Ltd
16.11.13, 9:45 a.m.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear members,
The question of regularisation of casual leave (CL) is not a new one. Engaging the CL by the succeeding contractor is also becoming the right of the CL. These situations are arising due to unionism in the organization. Management needs to seriously consider these matters. Just going on theory should be adopted by us.
From India, Visakhapatnam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The question of regularisation of casual leave (CL) is not a new one. Engaging the CL by the succeeding contractor is also becoming the right of the CL. These situations are arising due to unionism in the organization. Management needs to seriously consider these matters. Just going on theory should be adopted by us.
From India, Visakhapatnam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.