Hello Everyone,
I had to get my company registered under MLWF.
I had gone through the complete act.
However, I wanted to understand who is a mnager under the act. As the act says that Managers and SUpervisors don not come under the Act.
Corporates have so many peope designated as Managers these days, so is my company.
Secondly we are an Engineering company and hardly have any labour category.
Am I expected to pay MLWF for all of them or skip the Manager and above category.
Treesa George
From India, Pune
I had to get my company registered under MLWF.
I had gone through the complete act.
However, I wanted to understand who is a mnager under the act. As the act says that Managers and SUpervisors don not come under the Act.
Corporates have so many peope designated as Managers these days, so is my company.
Secondly we are an Engineering company and hardly have any labour category.
Am I expected to pay MLWF for all of them or skip the Manager and above category.
Treesa George
From India, Pune
Dear Treesa George
According to Act Managers & Supervisors are those who plays a role of administrative capacity. so you dont need to pay MLWF for these peoples. Dont worry you will not have any problem we are also engineering company & we are doing the same & have never faced problem.
So go ahead and pay MLWF for labours only.
Arun J.
From India, Hyderabad
190According to Act Managers & Supervisors are those who plays a role of administrative capacity. so you dont need to pay MLWF for these peoples. Dont worry you will not have any problem we are also engineering company & we are doing the same & have never faced problem.
So go ahead and pay MLWF for labours only.
Arun J.
From India, Hyderabad
Thanks a lot for your feedback.
It is just in January, 2013 that we got ourselves registered.
And we included moreover most of our employees in the same as per the recomendation from the consultant.
So in june can i show a reduced number?
From India, Pune
It is just in January, 2013 that we got ourselves registered.
And we included moreover most of our employees in the same as per the recomendation from the consultant.
So in june can i show a reduced number?
From India, Pune
Yes you can pay MLWF only on labours. no matter what figure you have given while registering. if in June 13 it will come less no problem. You can take sugession of your consultant. Arun J.
From India, Hyderabad
From India, Hyderabad
Sorry, but the advice given to you by our colleagues here will gt you into,trouble.
Managers are not defined in the act, but both factories act and shop and establishment act provides who is a manager. I'm factory act, everyone is a worker, starting from the lowest unskilled to the factory head. Exception is provided specifically for some things to a few people who are considered persons in confidential position (clearly defined). However, they are still workers so you have to pay for them also.
In mumbai shop and establishment act, the number of managers are defined in sch II, which limits managers to 5% of the total number of employees.
So irrespective of how many people you designate as manager, they are not so for shop and establishment act.
I would you stay with the numbers you have put earlier. It's a small amount (rs. 12 per person per half year). It's not worth getting into trouble over that
From India, Mumbai
Managers are not defined in the act, but both factories act and shop and establishment act provides who is a manager. I'm factory act, everyone is a worker, starting from the lowest unskilled to the factory head. Exception is provided specifically for some things to a few people who are considered persons in confidential position (clearly defined). However, they are still workers so you have to pay for them also.
In mumbai shop and establishment act, the number of managers are defined in sch II, which limits managers to 5% of the total number of employees.
So irrespective of how many people you designate as manager, they are not so for shop and establishment act.
I would you stay with the numbers you have put earlier. It's a small amount (rs. 12 per person per half year). It's not worth getting into trouble over that
From India, Mumbai
If you see Industrial Despute act what is a defination of workmen? if that defination is correct then all managers & supervisors must be excluded from MLWF act.
Check and correct me if I am wrong.
Arun J.
From India, Hyderabad
Check and correct me if I am wrong.
Arun J.
From India, Hyderabad
What is this MLWF Act ? Since our forum is a national or international forum I feel, if our friends provide full name of Act/s it will be more useful for knowledge and understanding.
From India, Hyderabad
From India, Hyderabad
Dear Sir,
MLWF
It is called as Maharashtra Labor Welfare Fund. Where employee & employer pay certain amount into welfare fund. and that amount is used by the government for the welfare of workers.
Arun J.
From India, Hyderabad
MLWF
It is called as Maharashtra Labor Welfare Fund. Where employee & employer pay certain amount into welfare fund. and that amount is used by the government for the welfare of workers.
Arun J.
From India, Hyderabad
The meaning ascribed to the word 'Manager' under the Factories Act and the Bombay Shops Act cannot be imported into Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act to define 'Manager' under the said Act since the purpose and objects for designating a manager under the Factories Act and Shops Act are for holding them responsible for administration of the respective establishments under those laws as is evident from the various provisions of those laws and thus is different from the purposes and objectives of Labour Welfare Fund Act. The purpose of the Labour Welfare Fund Act is to cover employees for welfare activities except managers.
The word ‘Manager’ is not defined by the Labour Welfare Fund Act. But the word 'employee' has been defined as a person employed for hire to do skilled, unskilled, manual, clerical, supervisory or technical work excluding managers & supervisors drawing wages exceeding Rs 3500/-p.m..Therefore a manager is some one who is not doing any of the above categories of work which an employee does bt doing something other than that which implies that he must be some one who i s discharging functions of the nature of supervision and control like taking decisions or giving directions to subordinates etc. and therefore includes all those persons falling under this excluded category but not merely those who are designated as managers under the Factories Act or Shops Act.
B.Saikumar
Mumbai
09930532927
From India, Mumbai
The word ‘Manager’ is not defined by the Labour Welfare Fund Act. But the word 'employee' has been defined as a person employed for hire to do skilled, unskilled, manual, clerical, supervisory or technical work excluding managers & supervisors drawing wages exceeding Rs 3500/-p.m..Therefore a manager is some one who is not doing any of the above categories of work which an employee does bt doing something other than that which implies that he must be some one who i s discharging functions of the nature of supervision and control like taking decisions or giving directions to subordinates etc. and therefore includes all those persons falling under this excluded category but not merely those who are designated as managers under the Factories Act or Shops Act.
B.Saikumar
Mumbai
09930532927
From India, Mumbai
Sorry Anand,
I should have been more clear.
The MLWF act defines employees as excluding managers and supervisors.
However, this is not just in name. It is those actually doing supervisory work or managerial work.
If you designate everyone in the office as a manager, or asst manager, they will not accept it.
Then you have to look at whether he is actually supervising or managing someone, how many people report to him, etc.
In the case mentioned above, I dont think that will pass the test.
Besides, in case of a dispute, it will be difficult to prove and examining everyone and their tasks is something i would not want to do in front of a labour officer or court. To that extent, its better to pay for everyone one (specially as the amount is small).
In addition, Labour officers in maharashtra have been taking cue from the shop and establishment act and saying we will not accept more than 5% of the employees in an office as a manager. I have just come across 1 such case yesterday (amazing coincidence)
From India, Mumbai
I should have been more clear.
The MLWF act defines employees as excluding managers and supervisors.
However, this is not just in name. It is those actually doing supervisory work or managerial work.
If you designate everyone in the office as a manager, or asst manager, they will not accept it.
Then you have to look at whether he is actually supervising or managing someone, how many people report to him, etc.
In the case mentioned above, I dont think that will pass the test.
Besides, in case of a dispute, it will be difficult to prove and examining everyone and their tasks is something i would not want to do in front of a labour officer or court. To that extent, its better to pay for everyone one (specially as the amount is small).
In addition, Labour officers in maharashtra have been taking cue from the shop and establishment act and saying we will not accept more than 5% of the employees in an office as a manager. I have just come across 1 such case yesterday (amazing coincidence)
From India, Mumbai
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
H.R.Manager - Job Chart.doc
152120-very-use ful-hr-manageme nt-software-bui lt-excel-psa-hr -manager-mainta in-payrrol-exce l-soft.zip
Signs of a Good Manager.ppt