You can disagree but I also agree but to disagree!
We will discuss this issue in the light of a judgment by Madras High Court reported last month only (available in May 23 issue of LLR) Please refer to EMKO KCP Ltd Vs The Employees State Insurance Corporation (2023 LLR 506) tomorrow. I am busy with another preoccupied engagement today.
From India, Kannur
4248We will discuss this issue in the light of a judgment by Madras High Court reported last month only (available in May 23 issue of LLR) Please refer to EMKO KCP Ltd Vs The Employees State Insurance Corporation (2023 LLR 506) tomorrow. I am busy with another preoccupied engagement today.
From India, Kannur
Apart from the minimum wages, PF, etc compliances, god forbid, if the forklift operator meets with an accident on the shop floor, definitely the PE will be liable. Therefore compliance proof should be asked for by the PE. If the contractor does not have PF/ ESI code, the contribution can be made on the code of PE.
From India, Kolkata
From India, Kolkata
Madhu-ji,
I am not able to find the judgement on the net...
Looking forward to a discussion and learning from you.
Please ping me on WhatsApp when you are free from your current engagement.
If possible, please send me a copy of the judgment (Note, I already searched Google and ChatGPt and couldn't locate it. Clarifying as I always post back saying google for it ;-) )
From India, Mumbai
I am not able to find the judgement on the net...
Looking forward to a discussion and learning from you.
Please ping me on WhatsApp when you are free from your current engagement.
If possible, please send me a copy of the judgment (Note, I already searched Google and ChatGPt and couldn't locate it. Clarifying as I always post back saying google for it ;-) )
From India, Mumbai
No, it may not available in the internet right now because it has been reported in this month's LLR. I will share the relevant points today in due course. I had a long meeting etc yesterday and I reached back late mid night only!
From India, Kannur
From India, Kannur
There have been a controversies on the terms " Contract For Service" and " Contract Of Service". There are lot of ambiguities in the construction of contracts. The Apex Court of India, in Sushilaben Indravadan Gandhi Vs New India Insurance Company Limited, has given some interpretations about it and tried to define a workman and what differentiates contract of service from contract for service. The recent Madras High Court judgment also has referred the above case. In this case, the EMKO KCP has appoint some third party agents to boost their sales for a consideration. The ESI Corporation demanded ESI contribution on this amount saying that this amounts to 'wages'. But actually this is not merely wages but it is the fee for their services which could obviously include sales promotion activities by their employees. The court observed that the amount paid is purely service charges and not wages.
In the present case also the service of lifting the goods/ stacking the same etc using the machines, tools, equipment and men of an outside agency is what is 'purchased' by the factory owners. For them, whoever is engaged to do the work is immaterial, it is immaterial how many are engaged also. What is material? Only the tons of goods loaded or stacked. It between there exists no supervision by the factory managers, no control over the machines and equipment by the factory people, but everything is taken care of by the agency who undertakes the work. He is certainly an independent contractor who takes a contract for service and to accomplish the same, engages his workmen and his machinery.
in respect of independent contractors there are a number of verdicts that master servant relationship will not be present. The Hassan Cooperative Milk Society's case is an example in support that in respect of a Contract For (transportation of milk from the factory to different outlets) Service, no employee employer relationship exists. This case is very similar to the one in our discussion.
I am attaching a scanned copy of the Madras High Court judgment.
From India, Kannur
In the present case also the service of lifting the goods/ stacking the same etc using the machines, tools, equipment and men of an outside agency is what is 'purchased' by the factory owners. For them, whoever is engaged to do the work is immaterial, it is immaterial how many are engaged also. What is material? Only the tons of goods loaded or stacked. It between there exists no supervision by the factory managers, no control over the machines and equipment by the factory people, but everything is taken care of by the agency who undertakes the work. He is certainly an independent contractor who takes a contract for service and to accomplish the same, engages his workmen and his machinery.
in respect of independent contractors there are a number of verdicts that master servant relationship will not be present. The Hassan Cooperative Milk Society's case is an example in support that in respect of a Contract For (transportation of milk from the factory to different outlets) Service, no employee employer relationship exists. This case is very similar to the one in our discussion.
I am attaching a scanned copy of the Madras High Court judgment.
From India, Kannur
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.
Some Email Etiquettes when making a complaint to Service Providers.doc
The Maharashtra Shops And Establishments (Regulation Of Employment And Conditions Of Service) Ac.pdf