Dear Friend,
If the contractor has obtained licence under CL(R&A) Act and is the paymaster then the workman can not be a workman of principal employer. The contractor is the employer for the workman and free to take any action against the workman under the provision of ID Act. As a principal employer you inform the labour office that principal employer has got no role over the admission or termination of workman of the contractor.
From India, Mumbai
588If the contractor has obtained licence under CL(R&A) Act and is the paymaster then the workman can not be a workman of principal employer. The contractor is the employer for the workman and free to take any action against the workman under the provision of ID Act. As a principal employer you inform the labour office that principal employer has got no role over the admission or termination of workman of the contractor.
From India, Mumbai
Dear Rajendra,
Hope you would have taken note of the common thread running through out the answers of all the learned members responded so far to your query, very particularly the useful tips given by Mr.R.S.Ranganathan. Therefore, you may consider filing a reply to the Labor Officer strictly high-lighting the following points only:
"1) In relation to the complainant/workman, Sri.............. who is a licensed contractor under the CLRA Act,1970 of our establishment, is the ultimate and actual employer .
2) As a registered Principal Employer under the Act, we are concerned only with the execution of the work undertaken by the said contractor to our satisfaction in terms of the number of qualified labor, time and quality of the work as agreed upon in the contract between the contractor and ourselves.
3) We, as the Principal Employer, did not have any contract of employment, either express or implied, with the complainant.
4) As such, our vicarious liability in respect of the contract labor engaged by the said contractor in the particular contract work is limited to the matters specified in Sections 20 and 21 of the CLRA Act,1970 only.
5) Therefore, we are not concerned with the selection or appointment or transfer or termination of any particular contract workman by the said contractor.
6) However, we have got the prerogative to instruct the contractor to replace any contract labor with suitable substitute if we notice any lapses or delay in the execution of the contract work and this has what actually happened in the case of the complainant.
7) It is the sole and independent discretion of the contractor to retain the complainant in his employment by deputing him to some other contract work undertaken elsewhere or otherwise and we do not own any responsibility for the contractor's decision in the matter.
8) In view of the above factual as well as legal position, we deserve to be dropped from all further proceedings upon the complaint on the ground of misjoinder of party. "
Better, consult with your legal adviser as well as the top brass.
From India, Salem
Hope you would have taken note of the common thread running through out the answers of all the learned members responded so far to your query, very particularly the useful tips given by Mr.R.S.Ranganathan. Therefore, you may consider filing a reply to the Labor Officer strictly high-lighting the following points only:
"1) In relation to the complainant/workman, Sri.............. who is a licensed contractor under the CLRA Act,1970 of our establishment, is the ultimate and actual employer .
2) As a registered Principal Employer under the Act, we are concerned only with the execution of the work undertaken by the said contractor to our satisfaction in terms of the number of qualified labor, time and quality of the work as agreed upon in the contract between the contractor and ourselves.
3) We, as the Principal Employer, did not have any contract of employment, either express or implied, with the complainant.
4) As such, our vicarious liability in respect of the contract labor engaged by the said contractor in the particular contract work is limited to the matters specified in Sections 20 and 21 of the CLRA Act,1970 only.
5) Therefore, we are not concerned with the selection or appointment or transfer or termination of any particular contract workman by the said contractor.
6) However, we have got the prerogative to instruct the contractor to replace any contract labor with suitable substitute if we notice any lapses or delay in the execution of the contract work and this has what actually happened in the case of the complainant.
7) It is the sole and independent discretion of the contractor to retain the complainant in his employment by deputing him to some other contract work undertaken elsewhere or otherwise and we do not own any responsibility for the contractor's decision in the matter.
8) In view of the above factual as well as legal position, we deserve to be dropped from all further proceedings upon the complaint on the ground of misjoinder of party. "
Better, consult with your legal adviser as well as the top brass.
From India, Salem
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.
Notification No G.S.R. 1128(E) Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Amendment .pdf
LABOUR CONTRACT AGREEMENT.doc
Contract Labour Act.zip