Dear Members,
Issue of Safety Shoes and uniforms to employees on a contributory basis (70:30 Employer: Employee).
I understand that some manufacturing units are deducting a certain token amount towards Safety Shoes and Uniform costs from the employees to make them feel like they have purchased it.
Is this lawful? Please examine the issue.
Regards,
From India, Jamshedpur
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
22Issue of Safety Shoes and uniforms to employees on a contributory basis (70:30 Employer: Employee).
I understand that some manufacturing units are deducting a certain token amount towards Safety Shoes and Uniform costs from the employees to make them feel like they have purchased it.
Is this lawful? Please examine the issue.
Regards,
From India, Jamshedpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear,
Providing safety shoes and uniforms is a requirement of the business, as well as a necessity for the health and safety of the employees. The company is obligated to provide these items due to the nature of the work. It is mandatory to supply them to the employees, and recovering the costs from employees is neither correct, ethical, nor lawful.
Regards, Tushar Swar
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Providing safety shoes and uniforms is a requirement of the business, as well as a necessity for the health and safety of the employees. The company is obligated to provide these items due to the nature of the work. It is mandatory to supply them to the employees, and recovering the costs from employees is neither correct, ethical, nor lawful.
Regards, Tushar Swar
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
As mentioned by Tushar, the employer must provide safety shoes, uniforms, safety helmets, and other personal protective equipment (PPE) to all workers, including contractor workers. The employer is entitled to recover the cost of these items if a worker leaves their job without fulfilling the terms and conditions before the specified period.
From India, Kumbakonam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Kumbakonam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Members,
Providing the PPEs to employees is mandatory. On mutual understanding, employees will be provided stitching charges when cloth is supplied for them. Repair of safety shoes will also be undertaken at the worksite as a welfare measure.
From India, Visakhapatnam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Providing the PPEs to employees is mandatory. On mutual understanding, employees will be provided stitching charges when cloth is supplied for them. Repair of safety shoes will also be undertaken at the worksite as a welfare measure.
From India, Visakhapatnam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear,
The issue of safety shoes and uniforms being provided to employees is in compliance with the safety requirements of the job and the organization, whether mandated by the Factories Act/Rules or otherwise. These items are not issued by the employer based on the employee's preferences. Therefore, the question of recovering any amount, regardless of the ratio, is not permissible either by the statute or otherwise.
S.K. Johri
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The issue of safety shoes and uniforms being provided to employees is in compliance with the safety requirements of the job and the organization, whether mandated by the Factories Act/Rules or otherwise. These items are not issued by the employer based on the employee's preferences. Therefore, the question of recovering any amount, regardless of the ratio, is not permissible either by the statute or otherwise.
S.K. Johri
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I appreciate the correct answers given by the members.
It is surprising and shocking to note that there are companies who stoop so low as to even recover a part of the PPE's issued to employees. Such bad practices should be condemned and brought to the notice of authorities.
What happens if an employee is not able to or does not want to contribute or "purchase"? Does the company refuse to issue him these safety appliances, putting him at risk???
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It is surprising and shocking to note that there are companies who stoop so low as to even recover a part of the PPE's issued to employees. Such bad practices should be condemned and brought to the notice of authorities.
What happens if an employee is not able to or does not want to contribute or "purchase"? Does the company refuse to issue him these safety appliances, putting him at risk???
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Personal Protective Equipments are the second line of defense for employee’s protection. The first line of defense is to eliminate accident-causing situations at the work place.
In the Factories Act, 1948, there are specific provisions for providing the
personal protective equipment for workers who are exposed to unsafe and unhealthy environment. It is also the intention of the law that theses personal protective equipments shall be of such type and made of such materials that they withstand to such specific hazards for which they are actually being used. You are requested to refer to the rules framed in your state under the Factories Act, 1948 for more details in this regard. This being the legal position recovering the cost of PPEs is not legal.
….Satori S.
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In the Factories Act, 1948, there are specific provisions for providing the
personal protective equipment for workers who are exposed to unsafe and unhealthy environment. It is also the intention of the law that theses personal protective equipments shall be of such type and made of such materials that they withstand to such specific hazards for which they are actually being used. You are requested to refer to the rules framed in your state under the Factories Act, 1948 for more details in this regard. This being the legal position recovering the cost of PPEs is not legal.
….Satori S.
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello,
Your question is valid and does invite a slew of thoughts.
However, may I give a perspective where - e.g. - When a person works in a company, they expect the company building to be strong, foundation stable, to have adequate ventilation and sufficient light in the cubicle, offices during the summer days. Just because a company provides these doesn't mean they should charge an employee for it.
Similarly, protective gear is required to save and protect the lives of people who are working for the company. This is a basic right and a necessary requirement for a person working. Generally, companies provide safety gear and change it approximately every three months. This is a standard and basic requirement that should be provided to employees at no cost. Legally, one shouldn't have to cover the cost.
But yes, if a company doesn't have a good policy, they will end up with workers coming to you every month with reasons on how they lost their equipment, damaged, misplaced it, etc., and you will need to end up providing them with extras. It's a balance of providing basic facilities and protection while ensuring that it's not taken for granted.
If this is the reason for charging them money, the perspective is understandable; but instead of making them pay, perhaps companies can instill a policy wherein they set a limit on the number of overalls a person will be given at no cost, or conditions under which they can claim a certain number of overalls per month; but in case of willful damage, etc., they may need to bear a small portion of the cost.
Thanks for raising the query for examination.
Regards,
Deena Jagasia
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Your question is valid and does invite a slew of thoughts.
However, may I give a perspective where - e.g. - When a person works in a company, they expect the company building to be strong, foundation stable, to have adequate ventilation and sufficient light in the cubicle, offices during the summer days. Just because a company provides these doesn't mean they should charge an employee for it.
Similarly, protective gear is required to save and protect the lives of people who are working for the company. This is a basic right and a necessary requirement for a person working. Generally, companies provide safety gear and change it approximately every three months. This is a standard and basic requirement that should be provided to employees at no cost. Legally, one shouldn't have to cover the cost.
But yes, if a company doesn't have a good policy, they will end up with workers coming to you every month with reasons on how they lost their equipment, damaged, misplaced it, etc., and you will need to end up providing them with extras. It's a balance of providing basic facilities and protection while ensuring that it's not taken for granted.
If this is the reason for charging them money, the perspective is understandable; but instead of making them pay, perhaps companies can instill a policy wherein they set a limit on the number of overalls a person will be given at no cost, or conditions under which they can claim a certain number of overalls per month; but in case of willful damage, etc., they may need to bear a small portion of the cost.
Thanks for raising the query for examination.
Regards,
Deena Jagasia
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello,
Following is a very good practice in my organization. We provide uniforms and footwear to all employees.
What we provide:
- 3 shirts
- 2 trousers
- shoes
- sweater
How we process:
- $3000 deducted from the first-month salary
- reimbursed after 6 months
Why: Nowadays, attrition is very high. Providing uniforms and footwear can help control it.
Hope this helps.
Kanika
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Following is a very good practice in my organization. We provide uniforms and footwear to all employees.
What we provide:
- 3 shirts
- 2 trousers
- shoes
- sweater
How we process:
- $3000 deducted from the first-month salary
- reimbursed after 6 months
Why: Nowadays, attrition is very high. Providing uniforms and footwear can help control it.
Hope this helps.
Kanika
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Kanika,
Has it helped your company in "controlling" attrition?
On the contrary, it might have helped the company generate some income to be included under the head "Other Incomes" in the income statement.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Has it helped your company in "controlling" attrition?
On the contrary, it might have helped the company generate some income to be included under the head "Other Incomes" in the income statement.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I have read the posts. I agree that it is a good practice to provide PPE free of cost. However, i am not clear where in law does it say you can not recover the cost of the same from the employee
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Banerjee,
The law stipulates provision of safety/protective clothing, as well as helmets, safety boots, and safety belts. An employee may not like to pay for the same, but the employer is under obligation to provide them. It is the nature of management to try to meet the statutory obligation by providing them free of cost. You may not find it codified, but will appreciate the position.
S.K. Johri
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The law stipulates provision of safety/protective clothing, as well as helmets, safety boots, and safety belts. An employee may not like to pay for the same, but the employer is under obligation to provide them. It is the nature of management to try to meet the statutory obligation by providing them free of cost. You may not find it codified, but will appreciate the position.
S.K. Johri
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Issue of uniform to employees is common in industries. It is for uniformity and also for the safety of employees, in case clothes become soiled due to the nature of their work or duties in factories.
The issue of shoes is for foot safety in case of any untoward incident to prevent foot injuries at work. Normally, they are supplied by the company once a year or every two years, based on the nature of the work, free of cost. However, some employees, without taking responsibility, do not wear or lose their uniform and shoes due to negligence. They also fail to wear shoes and uniform over time.
To instill seriousness, some companies make uniforms and shoes a part of the partnership to encourage employees to take ownership. A token or nominal amount is deducted from their pay for this purpose to promote a sense of responsibility. This approach is to ensure their contribution, rather than otherwise. This aspect should be appreciated.
D. Gurumurthy
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The issue of shoes is for foot safety in case of any untoward incident to prevent foot injuries at work. Normally, they are supplied by the company once a year or every two years, based on the nature of the work, free of cost. However, some employees, without taking responsibility, do not wear or lose their uniform and shoes due to negligence. They also fail to wear shoes and uniform over time.
To instill seriousness, some companies make uniforms and shoes a part of the partnership to encourage employees to take ownership. A token or nominal amount is deducted from their pay for this purpose to promote a sense of responsibility. This approach is to ensure their contribution, rather than otherwise. This aspect should be appreciated.
D. Gurumurthy
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Though it is a requirement of the employment that the employee follow certain rules or use certain tools, it is not necessary that the employer pays for it. It can be a clearly stated term of employment that you get this item at your cost or that you will be charged for it.
For example, today every employer wants employees to have a cell phone, but employees are required to buy and pay for it on their own. Sales reps are required to wear ties as a part of the uniform, but the company does not pay for it. So, unless stated specifically, nothing legally requires the employer to pay for the shoes.
For example, when a company specifies that MR needs to travel on bikes and that all bike users need to use helmets, do they have to pay for the helmet or can they ask the employee to buy his own.
The only link I see here is the sec 7A stipulation of maintaining a safe environment. But again, that would really mean following safety regulations, safety systems on machines, no fumes, etc., but not necessarily to provide free shoes. Is there any law or decision that links this point? I wish to understand for academic interest since I am sure someone will at some time argue on that line.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
For example, today every employer wants employees to have a cell phone, but employees are required to buy and pay for it on their own. Sales reps are required to wear ties as a part of the uniform, but the company does not pay for it. So, unless stated specifically, nothing legally requires the employer to pay for the shoes.
For example, when a company specifies that MR needs to travel on bikes and that all bike users need to use helmets, do they have to pay for the helmet or can they ask the employee to buy his own.
The only link I see here is the sec 7A stipulation of maintaining a safe environment. But again, that would really mean following safety regulations, safety systems on machines, no fumes, etc., but not necessarily to provide free shoes. Is there any law or decision that links this point? I wish to understand for academic interest since I am sure someone will at some time argue on that line.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It is interesting to see the discussion going in a direction that seeks to recover the cost of the PPE's from the employees.
It is being argued that although the Law does ask the employer to provide it, nowhere does it say that the employer cannot recover the cost.
There can be arguments for the sake of arguments. In Hindi, they are called "Tarka", "Vitarka," and "Kutarka". It is the last one that one should guard against. Kutarka or 'bad arguments' goes like this:
A glass of water is half full.
It means it is half empty.
Therefore, half empty means half full.
So 'empty' is equal to 'full'!!!
I have only two points to make with respect to the discussion going on.
The first is:
The Law requires the employer to provide several things for the safety and welfare of the employees.
For example, under the Factories Act, they range from providing cool drinking water, washing facilities, to canteen, creche, First Aid Box, Ambulance, Welfare officer, etc.
Since nowhere does it say that the employer should not recover the costs from employees, should an employer recover pro rata costs from employees for expenses in providing these, such as the cost of running the Creche, the salary of the Welfare Officer, etc.? Cost of running the canteen, and other facilities??
If this is so, then no employee will get any salary!!
In any case, the labor cost components come to 8-12% of the total production cost. If all such expenses for complying with the Laws and running the business are recovered from employees, there would not be any need to pay any salary.
I think this seems to be the attitude of companies that are actually anti-social elements incorporated to hoodwink the Law. These are the kind of companies who will think of even breaking down the MINIMUM WAGES into several components with MINISCULE BASIC PAY, so that they pay less PF and other statutory obligations. Who are they trying to fool???
My second point is:
Before one thinks of RECOVERING WHATEVER AMOUNT one thinks fit, from the salary of employees;
I suggest one should thoroughly study the PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936.
About the problem of employees losing their PPE's again and again, there is a procedure for taking DISCIPLINARY ACTION for such negligence.
When such companies can merrily TERMINATE employees at will, why can they not take Disciplinary Actions??
It seems they are MORE INTERESTED in recovering money from ill-paid employees.
Also, why do these companies hesitate in IMPOSING FINES, instead of recovering money??
The simple reason is, FINES have to be shown in the specified registers, which has to be shown to Labor Authorities, and they will definitely seek justifications.
Moreover, the FINES cannot be kept by the Employers but have to be given to the Labor Welfare Fund of the concerned state.
So the companies feel it is better to enjoy the recovery from employees.
It is unfortunate that employees, especially workmen, are too scared to knock at the doors of the Labor Court against such ILLEGAL RECOVERIES.
More appalling is the fact that HRs, either due to ignorance of Laws or to get favors from the Management, are a willing party to such acts.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It is being argued that although the Law does ask the employer to provide it, nowhere does it say that the employer cannot recover the cost.
There can be arguments for the sake of arguments. In Hindi, they are called "Tarka", "Vitarka," and "Kutarka". It is the last one that one should guard against. Kutarka or 'bad arguments' goes like this:
A glass of water is half full.
It means it is half empty.
Therefore, half empty means half full.
So 'empty' is equal to 'full'!!!
I have only two points to make with respect to the discussion going on.
The first is:
The Law requires the employer to provide several things for the safety and welfare of the employees.
For example, under the Factories Act, they range from providing cool drinking water, washing facilities, to canteen, creche, First Aid Box, Ambulance, Welfare officer, etc.
Since nowhere does it say that the employer should not recover the costs from employees, should an employer recover pro rata costs from employees for expenses in providing these, such as the cost of running the Creche, the salary of the Welfare Officer, etc.? Cost of running the canteen, and other facilities??
If this is so, then no employee will get any salary!!
In any case, the labor cost components come to 8-12% of the total production cost. If all such expenses for complying with the Laws and running the business are recovered from employees, there would not be any need to pay any salary.
I think this seems to be the attitude of companies that are actually anti-social elements incorporated to hoodwink the Law. These are the kind of companies who will think of even breaking down the MINIMUM WAGES into several components with MINISCULE BASIC PAY, so that they pay less PF and other statutory obligations. Who are they trying to fool???
My second point is:
Before one thinks of RECOVERING WHATEVER AMOUNT one thinks fit, from the salary of employees;
I suggest one should thoroughly study the PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936.
About the problem of employees losing their PPE's again and again, there is a procedure for taking DISCIPLINARY ACTION for such negligence.
When such companies can merrily TERMINATE employees at will, why can they not take Disciplinary Actions??
It seems they are MORE INTERESTED in recovering money from ill-paid employees.
Also, why do these companies hesitate in IMPOSING FINES, instead of recovering money??
The simple reason is, FINES have to be shown in the specified registers, which has to be shown to Labor Authorities, and they will definitely seek justifications.
Moreover, the FINES cannot be kept by the Employers but have to be given to the Labor Welfare Fund of the concerned state.
So the companies feel it is better to enjoy the recovery from employees.
It is unfortunate that employees, especially workmen, are too scared to knock at the doors of the Labor Court against such ILLEGAL RECOVERIES.
More appalling is the fact that HRs, either due to ignorance of Laws or to get favors from the Management, are a willing party to such acts.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
A few corrections to your arguments :
For water and washing facilities, it is specified that it must be free of cost. Same is specified for crèche.
Canteen, many companies deduct money from the employees salary for food. It is not always free. In fact, few companies provide it free today.
Welfare officer is an officer of the company, so there is no question of recover of that money from employees. He rarely does things for employees anyway.
Frankly, I do not see the relevance of minimum wages breakup in this context.
And, no. The wages paid is far in excess of cost of all of these, and there will still be a lot left to pay to.
In terms of fines, the amount of fines specified is such a small amount, it makes nil difference to the employees. For example, someone caught spitting can be fined, not more than ₹3 per incident. The worker will laugh it off. Incidentally you need to hold a departmental inquiry to fine him ₹3. The maximum amount of fines that can be charged in a month is not more than 3% of gross wages (excluding overtime). Again, workers don't care as it makes insignificant impact. Even getting the list of fines approved is a huge task.
That is the reason the companies do not bother with fines. In the given context, fines can not be retained, so anyone losing a PPE and being fined does not help as the money can not be used by the co sony to buy a replacement. And, imagine having to conduct domestic enquiry to penalise a worker for losing a shoe. The cost benefit does not come close to reality.
Your point on Pay,net of Wages Act, is probably the one I was looking for, which is that unless specified in sec 6 and 7, you can not deduct it from wages. So my original question - where in law is it explicitly prohibited is now answered. We need to look in sec 6&7 of Payment of wages act and not in factories act where the requirement is given.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
For water and washing facilities, it is specified that it must be free of cost. Same is specified for crèche.
Canteen, many companies deduct money from the employees salary for food. It is not always free. In fact, few companies provide it free today.
Welfare officer is an officer of the company, so there is no question of recover of that money from employees. He rarely does things for employees anyway.
Frankly, I do not see the relevance of minimum wages breakup in this context.
And, no. The wages paid is far in excess of cost of all of these, and there will still be a lot left to pay to.
In terms of fines, the amount of fines specified is such a small amount, it makes nil difference to the employees. For example, someone caught spitting can be fined, not more than ₹3 per incident. The worker will laugh it off. Incidentally you need to hold a departmental inquiry to fine him ₹3. The maximum amount of fines that can be charged in a month is not more than 3% of gross wages (excluding overtime). Again, workers don't care as it makes insignificant impact. Even getting the list of fines approved is a huge task.
That is the reason the companies do not bother with fines. In the given context, fines can not be retained, so anyone losing a PPE and being fined does not help as the money can not be used by the co sony to buy a replacement. And, imagine having to conduct domestic enquiry to penalise a worker for losing a shoe. The cost benefit does not come close to reality.
Your point on Pay,net of Wages Act, is probably the one I was looking for, which is that unless specified in sec 6 and 7, you can not deduct it from wages. So my original question - where in law is it explicitly prohibited is now answered. We need to look in sec 6&7 of Payment of wages act and not in factories act where the requirement is given.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sir,
It is open discussion in a professional manner that makes this forum so attractive to me. I know I can make a point without fear of ridicule and also know that seniors will point out mistakes so that we can answer when it comes up in real life :)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It is open discussion in a professional manner that makes this forum so attractive to me. I know I can make a point without fear of ridicule and also know that seniors will point out mistakes so that we can answer when it comes up in real life :)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Saswata,
I am reproducing Rule 54 of Tamil Nadu BOCW Rules 2006:
54. Use of Safety Helmets and Shoes:--
(1) The Inspector may, having regard to the nature of hazards involved in the work carried out, order the employer in writing to supply to the building workers exposed to a particular hazard at a building or other construction work, any personal protective equipment, namely safety helmets and shoes as may be found necessary.
(2) The employer shall ensure that all persons who are performing such work wear safety shoes and helmets conforming to the national standards.
While I had a discussion with the Factory Inspector who is holding additional responsibility of BOCW Inspector, he confirmed that the BOCW Inspector has the power to issue instructions to the construction company to provide the PPEs free of cost. We are issuing the PPEs at no cost. However, if the workmen run away before the specified period is completed, we deduct the cost of PPE on a pro-rata basis. The contractors also agree to this deduction as it is done with their express consent.
This is for your information.
Thank you.
From India, Kumbakonam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am reproducing Rule 54 of Tamil Nadu BOCW Rules 2006:
54. Use of Safety Helmets and Shoes:--
(1) The Inspector may, having regard to the nature of hazards involved in the work carried out, order the employer in writing to supply to the building workers exposed to a particular hazard at a building or other construction work, any personal protective equipment, namely safety helmets and shoes as may be found necessary.
(2) The employer shall ensure that all persons who are performing such work wear safety shoes and helmets conforming to the national standards.
While I had a discussion with the Factory Inspector who is holding additional responsibility of BOCW Inspector, he confirmed that the BOCW Inspector has the power to issue instructions to the construction company to provide the PPEs free of cost. We are issuing the PPEs at no cost. However, if the workmen run away before the specified period is completed, we deduct the cost of PPE on a pro-rata basis. The contractors also agree to this deduction as it is done with their express consent.
This is for your information.
Thank you.
From India, Kumbakonam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Bhaskar,
Thank you for your valuable input with real-life experiences.
I agree with you that the only time it is fully justified to recover (pro-rata) the cost of PPE's is when the workman leaves the job without proper notice and final settlement and does not return the PPE's.
At other times, it should be the responsibility of the employer to provide the mandated PPE's to the workman free of cost.
This is not the same in other situations; for example, when pizza or fast-food delivery boys/salesmen are recruited with the condition that they must have their own two-wheelers and a valid driving license. In such cases, the person is bound to comply with the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act and should have a helmet while driving. Since the recruitment has been done with the necessary requirement of having a two-wheeler (and the helmet is a part of the package), the employer is not required to provide it, as it is the duty of the owner to have helmets.
Similarly, in the case of a salesperson, the company may have a dress policy to make them wear ties. Since it is not a life-saving device nor mandated by law, the company may or may not provide it depending on its policy and culture.
However, the case of safety devices for work in a particular industry is entirely different and in most cases required by law. For example, in the high-rise construction industry, a safety belt is a must. Also, in highly noise-polluting industries such as power plants, it is necessary that workers wear earplugs.
Police officers of the anti-terrorist squad may need to wear bulletproof vests.
In such situations, it is the employer who should provide these and not ask the employees to pay for them.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you for your valuable input with real-life experiences.
I agree with you that the only time it is fully justified to recover (pro-rata) the cost of PPE's is when the workman leaves the job without proper notice and final settlement and does not return the PPE's.
At other times, it should be the responsibility of the employer to provide the mandated PPE's to the workman free of cost.
This is not the same in other situations; for example, when pizza or fast-food delivery boys/salesmen are recruited with the condition that they must have their own two-wheelers and a valid driving license. In such cases, the person is bound to comply with the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act and should have a helmet while driving. Since the recruitment has been done with the necessary requirement of having a two-wheeler (and the helmet is a part of the package), the employer is not required to provide it, as it is the duty of the owner to have helmets.
Similarly, in the case of a salesperson, the company may have a dress policy to make them wear ties. Since it is not a life-saving device nor mandated by law, the company may or may not provide it depending on its policy and culture.
However, the case of safety devices for work in a particular industry is entirely different and in most cases required by law. For example, in the high-rise construction industry, a safety belt is a must. Also, in highly noise-polluting industries such as power plants, it is necessary that workers wear earplugs.
Police officers of the anti-terrorist squad may need to wear bulletproof vests.
In such situations, it is the employer who should provide these and not ask the employees to pay for them.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
Although Raj has given me the exact answer I require (i.e., reference to sections 6 and 7 of the Payment of Wages Act, which explicitly disallows deductions other than those listed), I would like to discuss this further. The wording of the section that you quoted clearly states that when instructed by the inspector, the employer will be required to supply PPE. This clearly means it must be given free of cost. There is no such explicit provision in the Factories Act. I have come across this argument many times (though we insist in our reports that it must be provided free, quoting section 7A). That was my original query.
Thanks for your additional inputs. Does anyone know of any court decisions to strengthen the argument?
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Although Raj has given me the exact answer I require (i.e., reference to sections 6 and 7 of the Payment of Wages Act, which explicitly disallows deductions other than those listed), I would like to discuss this further. The wording of the section that you quoted clearly states that when instructed by the inspector, the employer will be required to supply PPE. This clearly means it must be given free of cost. There is no such explicit provision in the Factories Act. I have come across this argument many times (though we insist in our reports that it must be provided free, quoting section 7A). That was my original query.
Thanks for your additional inputs. Does anyone know of any court decisions to strengthen the argument?
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Saswata,
I appreciate your persistence in looking for authoritative instructions on these, backed by judicial decisions or orders. However, let us accept the fact that there cannot be an order or judgment on every aspect of life unless such cases mushroom and become a serious widespread concern. Thus, even in the absence of an order or judgment, we should apply our minds without any prejudice or favor, and think rationally with the philosophy of welfare and equity. There are always unwritten rules and customs that are fair and just. We should know the best practices of the industry and apply them.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I appreciate your persistence in looking for authoritative instructions on these, backed by judicial decisions or orders. However, let us accept the fact that there cannot be an order or judgment on every aspect of life unless such cases mushroom and become a serious widespread concern. Thus, even in the absence of an order or judgment, we should apply our minds without any prejudice or favor, and think rationally with the philosophy of welfare and equity. There are always unwritten rules and customs that are fair and just. We should know the best practices of the industry and apply them.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Sirs,
Even though the helmet is considered as protective equipment, it is used in all places for private and official use. (Referring to wearing a helmet as protective gear, Tamil Actor Mr. Ajith Kumar stated in a press conference, "Sweating is better than bleeding"). We are discussing the personal protective equipment (PPE) required to be used within the work premises. It is the responsibility of the employer to provide a safe working environment for their employees. Therefore, the PPE is provided free of cost. However, if a worker absconds with the PPE and subsequently leaves the job, the supplied PPE becomes wasted. Individuals would not use safety shoes or safety jackets that have been used by others, even if the employer offers them for free. This lack of control over the expenditure on purchasing PPE is why I suggested that for those who leave the workplace before the stipulated tenure, the cost of the PPEs can be recovered on a prorata basis.
Thank you.
From India, Kumbakonam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Even though the helmet is considered as protective equipment, it is used in all places for private and official use. (Referring to wearing a helmet as protective gear, Tamil Actor Mr. Ajith Kumar stated in a press conference, "Sweating is better than bleeding"). We are discussing the personal protective equipment (PPE) required to be used within the work premises. It is the responsibility of the employer to provide a safe working environment for their employees. Therefore, the PPE is provided free of cost. However, if a worker absconds with the PPE and subsequently leaves the job, the supplied PPE becomes wasted. Individuals would not use safety shoes or safety jackets that have been used by others, even if the employer offers them for free. This lack of control over the expenditure on purchasing PPE is why I suggested that for those who leave the workplace before the stipulated tenure, the cost of the PPEs can be recovered on a prorata basis.
Thank you.
From India, Kumbakonam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This is a standard reason mentioned by contractors in many places where we conduct audits. They mention that people leave without notice and take away the PPE, and we cannot afford to provide new ones each time. The principal employer does not pay for this separately as it is included in the computed rate.
To resolve this issue, we need to come up with a fair solution, regardless of what the audit report states. Some solutions that have been suggested from time to time include:
- Keeping a set of helmets and shoes in the factory for new employees to use. After 1 week, they can be provided with new ones. The cost of the PPE is offset by the unpaid wages if the employee leaves without notice.
- Asking the employee to pay for the PPE when they join and reimbursing it with their salary after a month of work. However, this may not comply with certain regulations.
- Having the employee purchase their own shoes and helmet as a condition of joining and reimbursing them with their first wages.
It is challenging to keep a common set of shoes for new employees due to hygiene concerns, but helmets and goggles seem to be acceptable.
It is evident that neither the contractor nor the principal employer is willing to bear the cost of PPE each time a new employee joins. Therefore, a prorate adjustment may be the most suitable solution, though its implications under the act need to be considered.
In a quote by boss2966, the importance of providing PPEs for workplace safety is emphasized. Recovering the cost of PPEs from employees who leave before the stipulated tenure on a prorated basis is suggested as a solution.
Let's explore more practical ideas to address this challenge effectively.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
To resolve this issue, we need to come up with a fair solution, regardless of what the audit report states. Some solutions that have been suggested from time to time include:
- Keeping a set of helmets and shoes in the factory for new employees to use. After 1 week, they can be provided with new ones. The cost of the PPE is offset by the unpaid wages if the employee leaves without notice.
- Asking the employee to pay for the PPE when they join and reimbursing it with their salary after a month of work. However, this may not comply with certain regulations.
- Having the employee purchase their own shoes and helmet as a condition of joining and reimbursing them with their first wages.
It is challenging to keep a common set of shoes for new employees due to hygiene concerns, but helmets and goggles seem to be acceptable.
It is evident that neither the contractor nor the principal employer is willing to bear the cost of PPE each time a new employee joins. Therefore, a prorate adjustment may be the most suitable solution, though its implications under the act need to be considered.
In a quote by boss2966, the importance of providing PPEs for workplace safety is emphasized. Recovering the cost of PPEs from employees who leave before the stipulated tenure on a prorated basis is suggested as a solution.
Let's explore more practical ideas to address this challenge effectively.
From India, Mumbai
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.
Employer Administrative Contribution 2017.pdf
Ladder Safety Tips.zip