The paradigms of employment permanent employee, in Industry / Factory is undergoing a change with tech savvy, freedom of loving, job hopping, engagement of Fixed Term Contract Jobs/ deployment of man power through Man Power Service provider, in manufacturing activities, undergoing drastic changes, due to various extraneous factors.
The paradigms shift also identify well established, Man Power Service Provider, as ‘One of the Customers to Organization for Goal Achievement’ customer support / requirement. Not like the early years, it is an intricate or complicated association; the so called contractor has make indomitable arrangements to make his own establishment with all registration and licenses, more or less in line with client establishments.
The present scenario running a man Power Service Provider establishment has its own staff and Field supervisors, and is well qualified.
It is now well settled law that, when a contractor has got an independent code number, his or her liabilities get increased vis-à-vis the employees. On allotment of code number, the Provident Fund Authorities recognize the contractor as ‘establishment’ since it has complied with all the prescribed conditions. A principal employer cannot be held responsible for the omissions and commissions of the contractor’s employees. The Scheme of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act stipulates that the principal employer will not be supervising the workers of the contractor otherwise the contract labour system will be rendered as sham, ruse and camouflage as held in in Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs National Union Water Front Workers, 2001 LLR 961 (SC).
In Pardeep Kumar vs. Presiding Officer and another, 2015 LLR 726, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that employer-employee relationship, in respect of principal employer, would not exist if the contractor, engaged in supply of man-power, is having a valid licence under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, records of payment of wages and attendance show payments made by the contractor, EPF Employee Code number allotted to the workman is through the firm of the Contractor.
In Group 4 Securitas Guarding Ltd. & Another vs. Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal & Ors., 2012 LLR 22 the Delhi High Court has held that where the contractor, being employer providing services of man-power, is having control over the personnel being supplied by him to the establishments by way of issuance of appointment letters, making payment of wages and other allowances, taking disciplinary actions, effecting their placement, transfer and termination of services, the relationship between such a contractor and the establishment where the man-power is supplied by him would be of ‘principal to principal’ and not that of employer-contractor.
Total scenario relationship is completely changed. However, it is sanding to note that few of our HR fraternity, in multinational, still treats the Man Power Service Provider and his staff, as if people who is the legal property of Principle employer, and treats / threatens them. They are no more remains in the concepts of slaves system and they cannot be required to wait on your factory gate. The concept of relationship is totally changed as ‘principal to principal’ and not that of employer-contractor.
From India, Madras
294The paradigms shift also identify well established, Man Power Service Provider, as ‘One of the Customers to Organization for Goal Achievement’ customer support / requirement. Not like the early years, it is an intricate or complicated association; the so called contractor has make indomitable arrangements to make his own establishment with all registration and licenses, more or less in line with client establishments.
The present scenario running a man Power Service Provider establishment has its own staff and Field supervisors, and is well qualified.
It is now well settled law that, when a contractor has got an independent code number, his or her liabilities get increased vis-à-vis the employees. On allotment of code number, the Provident Fund Authorities recognize the contractor as ‘establishment’ since it has complied with all the prescribed conditions. A principal employer cannot be held responsible for the omissions and commissions of the contractor’s employees. The Scheme of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act stipulates that the principal employer will not be supervising the workers of the contractor otherwise the contract labour system will be rendered as sham, ruse and camouflage as held in in Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs National Union Water Front Workers, 2001 LLR 961 (SC).
In Pardeep Kumar vs. Presiding Officer and another, 2015 LLR 726, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that employer-employee relationship, in respect of principal employer, would not exist if the contractor, engaged in supply of man-power, is having a valid licence under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, records of payment of wages and attendance show payments made by the contractor, EPF Employee Code number allotted to the workman is through the firm of the Contractor.
In Group 4 Securitas Guarding Ltd. & Another vs. Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal & Ors., 2012 LLR 22 the Delhi High Court has held that where the contractor, being employer providing services of man-power, is having control over the personnel being supplied by him to the establishments by way of issuance of appointment letters, making payment of wages and other allowances, taking disciplinary actions, effecting their placement, transfer and termination of services, the relationship between such a contractor and the establishment where the man-power is supplied by him would be of ‘principal to principal’ and not that of employer-contractor.
Total scenario relationship is completely changed. However, it is sanding to note that few of our HR fraternity, in multinational, still treats the Man Power Service Provider and his staff, as if people who is the legal property of Principle employer, and treats / threatens them. They are no more remains in the concepts of slaves system and they cannot be required to wait on your factory gate. The concept of relationship is totally changed as ‘principal to principal’ and not that of employer-contractor.
From India, Madras
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.
Aspect Of Employer-Employ ees relationship-co ntract canteen.docx
Employer-employ ee_866.jpg