What about contractual or third party employee Do they should get GRATUITY...
As they are not getting job complete five years in same organisation. Companies are cheating they change vendor before five year to be completed if a vendor changed but the employee served to the same company under other vendor is he should get GRATUITY.
& How can he be permanent employee...
From India, Bharatpur
2As they are not getting job complete five years in same organisation. Companies are cheating they change vendor before five year to be completed if a vendor changed but the employee served to the same company under other vendor is he should get GRATUITY.
& How can he be permanent employee...
From India, Bharatpur
Dear Ravi,
Please note, Gratuity is applicable when employee works under any employer for 4Years and 240 days or more. As if vendor is changing that mean they are not in continuous employment under any vendor for prescribed period. Also, surely it is wrong labour practice which is been followed by the company.
Please note, Gratuity is applicable when employee works under any employer for 4Years and 240 days or more. As if vendor is changing that mean they are not in continuous employment under any vendor for prescribed period. Also, surely it is wrong labour practice which is been followed by the company.
Dear Ravi: There is no legal obligation on the part of principal employer to pay gratuity to the contract labour. In various enactments like PF, ESI, EC Act etc the liability is attached to the principal employer but not so in gratuity. In PGA it is the establishment which employs the labourer which is liable to pay gratuity.
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
If the vendor changes then continuity in service also gets affected for the worker and he need not be paid Gratuity by the Vendor (new) or the Principal Employer till he completes prescribed period.
From India, Hyderabad
From India, Hyderabad
The Principal Employer is responsible for the Gratuity Settlement to the Contract Employees.
If an employee raise a compliant to Labour Office stating that he works for a same organisation for more than 5 years with the different contractors means, he is also eligible for Gratuity as it is a proof that he serves for the same company.
Contractor Employees has full rights to take this to court. In such case mostly the principal employer would likely to pay Gratuity. Because earlier the contract should be given for experts under the field, but nowadays contractors are acting like a manpower consultants. They can do anything for their commission of 7 to 12 percent of Manpower Cost.
For Queries Write me to my G M A I L id: arvino.thehindu
From India, Chennai
If an employee raise a compliant to Labour Office stating that he works for a same organisation for more than 5 years with the different contractors means, he is also eligible for Gratuity as it is a proof that he serves for the same company.
Contractor Employees has full rights to take this to court. In such case mostly the principal employer would likely to pay Gratuity. Because earlier the contract should be given for experts under the field, but nowadays contractors are acting like a manpower consultants. They can do anything for their commission of 7 to 12 percent of Manpower Cost.
For Queries Write me to my G M A I L id: arvino.thehindu
From India, Chennai
The scenario presented in the post has two facets - one is legal and the other is ethical.
Basically, employment itself is a direct contractual relationship between the employer and the employee thereby creating certain perceivable mutual rights and obligations till the contract between them subsists. But any practice by whatever name it is called such as outsourcing/ contract labor introduces the element of indirectness into the relationship resulting in the disownment of one of the essential partner of production by the other who is actually the ultimate beneficiary and an identity crisis in the very relationship apart from the denial of certain employment rights and benefits otherwise available to such indirect labor. Of course such a practice of indirect labor can be justified in incidental and intermittent nature of activities in terms of flexibility of hire and fire and economy of operations. When it is adopted in core activities too, it assumes the character of exploitation. To remedy this mischief only, the Contract Labor ( Regulation and Abolition ) Act,1970 was passed by the Government of India.
But, an unbiased analysis of practical experience will certainly prove that this is the Act in the top of the list of poorly enforced Labor Legislations in India. Particularly after the advent of LPG, the status quo is more in contravention than in compliance despite the case laws enunciated by the higher Judiciary about the vicarious liability of the Principal Employer on the service conditions of their contract labor. Employers, always, prove to be more intelligent than the Law-makers everywhere. In order to circumvent the provisions of the CLRA Act, either they found their benami satellite units of production and outsource the sizable core activities or create umbrella labor contracts thus mentioned in the post and reap the consequential benefits of economy of operations, flexibility of hire and fire and prevention of unionization of such employees.Regarding the liability of the PE in respect of payment of gratuity to his contract labor, the Courts do not have consensus of opinion. Particularly, when the contractors get changed periodically before the completion of every 5 years, the question of gratuity becomes all the more difficult in view of the minimum qualifying service under the same employer prescribed by the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972.
Therefore, the only legal remedy available to such contract labour is to raise an industrial dispute u/s 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 for the conferment of equality in service conditions on par with the regular workmen of the principal employer by declaring the contract as a sham one.
From India, Salem
Basically, employment itself is a direct contractual relationship between the employer and the employee thereby creating certain perceivable mutual rights and obligations till the contract between them subsists. But any practice by whatever name it is called such as outsourcing/ contract labor introduces the element of indirectness into the relationship resulting in the disownment of one of the essential partner of production by the other who is actually the ultimate beneficiary and an identity crisis in the very relationship apart from the denial of certain employment rights and benefits otherwise available to such indirect labor. Of course such a practice of indirect labor can be justified in incidental and intermittent nature of activities in terms of flexibility of hire and fire and economy of operations. When it is adopted in core activities too, it assumes the character of exploitation. To remedy this mischief only, the Contract Labor ( Regulation and Abolition ) Act,1970 was passed by the Government of India.
But, an unbiased analysis of practical experience will certainly prove that this is the Act in the top of the list of poorly enforced Labor Legislations in India. Particularly after the advent of LPG, the status quo is more in contravention than in compliance despite the case laws enunciated by the higher Judiciary about the vicarious liability of the Principal Employer on the service conditions of their contract labor. Employers, always, prove to be more intelligent than the Law-makers everywhere. In order to circumvent the provisions of the CLRA Act, either they found their benami satellite units of production and outsource the sizable core activities or create umbrella labor contracts thus mentioned in the post and reap the consequential benefits of economy of operations, flexibility of hire and fire and prevention of unionization of such employees.Regarding the liability of the PE in respect of payment of gratuity to his contract labor, the Courts do not have consensus of opinion. Particularly, when the contractors get changed periodically before the completion of every 5 years, the question of gratuity becomes all the more difficult in view of the minimum qualifying service under the same employer prescribed by the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972.
Therefore, the only legal remedy available to such contract labour is to raise an industrial dispute u/s 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 for the conferment of equality in service conditions on par with the regular workmen of the principal employer by declaring the contract as a sham one.
From India, Salem
MANOJ JI , KK JI , VENKATA VAMSI KRISHNA PATNAIK JI, VINOTH JI , UMAKANTHAN53 JI Thanks thanks a lot so such reviews. actually i am recetly seaching on contract labor i want to start some welfare reforms for contract labor their should be gratuity and all benifits.
From India, Bharatpur
From India, Bharatpur
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.
Office Order regarding Maternity Leave for Contractual employee as per Amendment Act 2017.pdf
Contractual.doc