Dear Adil: This is wrong linkage, as the topic is entirely different. You could have started a new discussion rather than linking with this topic.
It is for the leave sanctioning authority to decide whether leave is to be sanctioned. Leave is not a matter of right, it is subject to exigencies of service. So refuse to sanction the leave sought.
From India, Mumbai
1534It is for the leave sanctioning authority to decide whether leave is to be sanctioned. Leave is not a matter of right, it is subject to exigencies of service. So refuse to sanction the leave sought.
From India, Mumbai
I am sorry to differ from comments of Mr. R.K. Singh and rather feel that issuence of FRESH Form V against seperate Work Orders (even within the same premises) is not only preferable, but is also advisable.
Think of a situation where a large Construction Company is entrusted a contract for "Pile Foundation" for a Thermal Power Plant of State Electricity Board and the Pricipal Employer issues him Form V. Subsequently during currency of the said contract the Principal Emplyer (the "Client") decide to entruct the same Construction Company a second contract for "Construction of Civil Works for Coal Handling Plant", a third contract for "Construction of Chimney", a forth for "Construction of Cooling Tower" and issue seperate work orders for each contract.
Now, the Contractor is having options of either incresing the strength of the "Labour Licence" (obtaind for "Pile Foundation" work) therein adding further numbers to the Licenced capacity of the Licence, or approach the Principal Employer for seperate Form V for execution of each work.
The advantage of the "second" option is that the Licence obtained for each individual contract can be surrendered for cancellation on submission of "Certificate of completion" from the Principal Employer. This option is more acceptable as otherwise the "Licenced Capacity" (strength of the first licence taken) be reduced to required extent. This proposition is beyond law since the the Act does not provide for reduction in the strength of "Licenced Capacity".
From India, Pune
Think of a situation where a large Construction Company is entrusted a contract for "Pile Foundation" for a Thermal Power Plant of State Electricity Board and the Pricipal Employer issues him Form V. Subsequently during currency of the said contract the Principal Emplyer (the "Client") decide to entruct the same Construction Company a second contract for "Construction of Civil Works for Coal Handling Plant", a third contract for "Construction of Chimney", a forth for "Construction of Cooling Tower" and issue seperate work orders for each contract.
Now, the Contractor is having options of either incresing the strength of the "Labour Licence" (obtaind for "Pile Foundation" work) therein adding further numbers to the Licenced capacity of the Licence, or approach the Principal Employer for seperate Form V for execution of each work.
The advantage of the "second" option is that the Licence obtained for each individual contract can be surrendered for cancellation on submission of "Certificate of completion" from the Principal Employer. This option is more acceptable as otherwise the "Licenced Capacity" (strength of the first licence taken) be reduced to required extent. This proposition is beyond law since the the Act does not provide for reduction in the strength of "Licenced Capacity".
From India, Pune
The principal employer issues Form V on the basis of Work Order issued to a Contractor. If multiple work orders issued that may be within one premises, the principal employer is bound for issue of separate form V, on that basis a contractor can have separate licence.
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Rule 28 of the Contract Labour Rules provides for Amendment to the Licence already granted, which means that when the Contractor is given new / additional contract work by the PE in the same premises, the Contractor has to apply for an amendment, mentioning in the application the nature of the amendment required and reason therefor, change in the particulars already furnished in Form IV etc.,. When the statute provides certain procedures for the Contractor to get his licence amended when he is given new / additional jobs, it is advisable to make the Contractor to have only single licence for all the contract woks in the particular establishment, instead of asking him to take several separate Licences. We have taken more than 40 contract Licences in various Companies for different works in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, using only one Form V.
N Nataraajhan, Sakthi Management Services (Hp : + 91 94835 17402 ; E-mail :
)
From India, Bangalore
N Nataraajhan, Sakthi Management Services (Hp : + 91 94835 17402 ; E-mail :
From India, Bangalore
Very fruitful discussion on the issue.......
Looking to following advantage, It is always advisable to issue separate form V if the nature of job is different of the issued work order/PO.
1. Contractor can surrender the labour license for which the job is completed and claim the refund of security deposit.
2. Being an employer, it will be easy to monitor the productivity of each job as the allocated MP are different in skill set and contractor cann't manipulate the numbers of labour
3. In case of any accident, employer can catch hold the contractor in case of unlawful use of labour
Some time we have to think beyond the LAW looking to current scenario/ smartness of contractor and important one is to insulate the interest of the organisation
From India, Vadodara
Looking to following advantage, It is always advisable to issue separate form V if the nature of job is different of the issued work order/PO.
1. Contractor can surrender the labour license for which the job is completed and claim the refund of security deposit.
2. Being an employer, it will be easy to monitor the productivity of each job as the allocated MP are different in skill set and contractor cann't manipulate the numbers of labour
3. In case of any accident, employer can catch hold the contractor in case of unlawful use of labour
Some time we have to think beyond the LAW looking to current scenario/ smartness of contractor and important one is to insulate the interest of the organisation
From India, Vadodara
The follow-up response of our learned brother Mr.Nataraajhan and his arguments advanced therein favouring a single contractor's licence by means of amendments to an existing licence in respect of multiple contract works subsequently undertaken by the same contractor under the same principal employer within the same premises add piquancy to the discussion. His personal experience in this regard as a contractor under the CLRA Act,1970 across the Southern States is taken due notice of. Of course, perceptions differ among the authorities who enforce the Act and so do procedures to the extent accordingly. Yet, what is more appropriate has to be decided based on the principle underlying every such rule relating to procedure only rather than surmises based on the ease of compliance.
Amendment of an existing licence is provided for u/s 14(2) of the Act r.w rule 28 of the Central Rules,1971 as observed by our friend. In this context, I think, what could be an amendment to an existing licence is a pertinent issue. Since the licence is non-transferable, there can not be an amendment in regard to the licencee or the PE. Since, renewal of the licence is also provided for in case of extension of the contract work beyond the period already stipulated, no possibility of any amendment in this regard too. Therefore, what could be amended in respect of a contractor's licence already granted, if at all, are (1) any additional work similar to or in extension of the work already mentioned or (2) any upward revision in the total no. of contract labor to be employed or (3) any change in the name and address of the Agent or Manager of the Contractor.
Therefore, my own experience as a Licensing Officer for about 8 years and a Registering Officer for about 12 years under the CLRA Act,1970 prompts me to state with due respect to a seasoned contractor like Mr.Nataraajhan and the learned officers mentioned by him in his reply that a single licence for the already licensed contractor in respect of subsequent different nature of contract works with similar or different duration under the same principal employer by means of time-to-time amendments is not a correct procedure either on the part of the contractor or the licensing officer.
From India, Salem
Amendment of an existing licence is provided for u/s 14(2) of the Act r.w rule 28 of the Central Rules,1971 as observed by our friend. In this context, I think, what could be an amendment to an existing licence is a pertinent issue. Since the licence is non-transferable, there can not be an amendment in regard to the licencee or the PE. Since, renewal of the licence is also provided for in case of extension of the contract work beyond the period already stipulated, no possibility of any amendment in this regard too. Therefore, what could be amended in respect of a contractor's licence already granted, if at all, are (1) any additional work similar to or in extension of the work already mentioned or (2) any upward revision in the total no. of contract labor to be employed or (3) any change in the name and address of the Agent or Manager of the Contractor.
Therefore, my own experience as a Licensing Officer for about 8 years and a Registering Officer for about 12 years under the CLRA Act,1970 prompts me to state with due respect to a seasoned contractor like Mr.Nataraajhan and the learned officers mentioned by him in his reply that a single licence for the already licensed contractor in respect of subsequent different nature of contract works with similar or different duration under the same principal employer by means of time-to-time amendments is not a correct procedure either on the part of the contractor or the licensing officer.
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.
Employer-employ ee_866.jpg
Employer-PF-res trict to wages of Rs 6500.pdf