Hi,
I would like to suggest the following in your defense if the matter is taken to court.
1. Please check if you have a valid contract subsisting between your company and the contractor, wherein there is a specific mention about the type of services offered by the contractor and a service level agreement such as the duration of this service, a clause by which the contractor indemnifies the principal employer in the event of litigations of this sort.
2. Also, look for evidence like salary slips, ESI, PF numbers given by the contractor to this employee in question in support of your defense.
Best Regards,
Raammohan.K
From United Kingdom
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
I would like to suggest the following in your defense if the matter is taken to court.
1. Please check if you have a valid contract subsisting between your company and the contractor, wherein there is a specific mention about the type of services offered by the contractor and a service level agreement such as the duration of this service, a clause by which the contractor indemnifies the principal employer in the event of litigations of this sort.
2. Also, look for evidence like salary slips, ESI, PF numbers given by the contractor to this employee in question in support of your defense.
Best Regards,
Raammohan.K
From United Kingdom
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
An interesting point, Raj. Since the certificates are only to be issued by HR and the person issuing it was not authorized, and also the employee was not even working for him (he was handling computer data entry work for his boss), would this amount to unauthorized certificates and therefore be invalid? If I were the boss, I would immediately suspend him and initiate an inquiry under corrupt practices act (or whatever the law is in force) to see if the certificate was given in exchange for money.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
2638From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Mehabub,
The matter is very simple: the contract labor is only on deemed deputation to your company for a certain period for which you have selected him/her on the basis of an interview. After the completion of his/her period of deputation, you have given an experience certificate based on which he cannot claim any job in your company. If you have any contracts with the contractor or written communication, then send a legal notice to the contractor claiming damages, and I am sure the contractor will realize his mistake.
With best regards.
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The matter is very simple: the contract labor is only on deemed deputation to your company for a certain period for which you have selected him/her on the basis of an interview. After the completion of his/her period of deputation, you have given an experience certificate based on which he cannot claim any job in your company. If you have any contracts with the contractor or written communication, then send a legal notice to the contractor claiming damages, and I am sure the contractor will realize his mistake.
With best regards.
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Mr. Satya,
I do not know why everyone tries to scare you. Just because a contract laborer is working continuously for a long time, it does not give him any prescriptive right to claim permanent absorption. The Supreme Court in the Sail waterfront workers case (5-member bench) said so. Unless the employment in which the contract laborer is/was working is prohibited and notified under Section 10 of the CL(R&A) Act, 1970, he cannot claim permanent absorption. Of course, employing a person continuously as a contract laborer for such a long period, the principal employer is liable to be punished under the Act, but it does not give the contract laborer employment.
Further, employment in government organizations is regulated by rules and regulations, and nobody can claim employment outside of the said rules simply based on an experience certificate.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I do not know why everyone tries to scare you. Just because a contract laborer is working continuously for a long time, it does not give him any prescriptive right to claim permanent absorption. The Supreme Court in the Sail waterfront workers case (5-member bench) said so. Unless the employment in which the contract laborer is/was working is prohibited and notified under Section 10 of the CL(R&A) Act, 1970, he cannot claim permanent absorption. Of course, employing a person continuously as a contract laborer for such a long period, the principal employer is liable to be punished under the Act, but it does not give the contract laborer employment.
Further, employment in government organizations is regulated by rules and regulations, and nobody can claim employment outside of the said rules simply based on an experience certificate.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Satya and other friends,
Could you pl.go thro the discussion taken place in the forum earlier from this link on similar subject.?
www.citehr.com › ... › Human Resource Management
Of course the queriest's problem is slightly different and much would depend on the tendencies of the Actions and Reactions of the persons involved and the management. For the present I prefer to wait and watch.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Could you pl.go thro the discussion taken place in the forum earlier from this link on similar subject.?
www.citehr.com › ... › Human Resource Management
Of course the queriest's problem is slightly different and much would depend on the tendencies of the Actions and Reactions of the persons involved and the management. For the present I prefer to wait and watch.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Satya,
However, without scaring you with ifs and buts, I would suggest that in the worst-case scenario, the attached Supreme Court judgment could possibly help you understand how this case could be taken further. This is in relation to the question of whether a contract laborer with 240 days of continuous service/work could claim permanency. Of course, it might touch upon only a few aspects.
Thank you.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
However, without scaring you with ifs and buts, I would suggest that in the worst-case scenario, the attached Supreme Court judgment could possibly help you understand how this case could be taken further. This is in relation to the question of whether a contract laborer with 240 days of continuous service/work could claim permanency. Of course, it might touch upon only a few aspects.
Thank you.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I do not see the relevance of the stated case law to the post in this thread. Please explain
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
As per my understanding, the person is working at your organization on a third-party contract. I feel that in the contract agreement, there should be a clause which states "you cannot absorb the contractor's resource in your organization," or something similar that could help you. Another way to discourage him is to find out what he is not interested in and assign him that work. In the meantime, keep telling him that you need to discuss or that management is busy with other organizational activities.
After some time, when he becomes fed up with his new job function, he will not be able to perform well, lose interest and credibility, and eventually stop claiming. I hope this works.
Thanks
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
As per my understanding, the person is working at your organization on a third-party contract. I feel that in the contract agreement, there should be a clause which states "you cannot absorb the contractor's resource in your organization," or something similar that could help you. Another way to discourage him is to find out what he is not interested in and assign him that work. In the meantime, keep telling him that you need to discuss or that management is busy with other organizational activities.
After some time, when he becomes fed up with his new job function, he will not be able to perform well, lose interest and credibility, and eventually stop claiming. I hope this works.
Thanks
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
It was wonderful to have all of your comments, and I am also of the same opinion. However, there is one more important thing we have to consider – has the contractor issued any letter to the individual? If yes, then what clauses has he included or any other instructions that have been issued by the contractor, etc.? If the case goes to court, the court will review all the points, and the decision will be based on that. In this scenario, the CLA (Contract Labor Act) is also applicable, as the company is a government body, and they must have policies in place that can definitely protect the interests of the company.
Thank you.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It was wonderful to have all of your comments, and I am also of the same opinion. However, there is one more important thing we have to consider – has the contractor issued any letter to the individual? If yes, then what clauses has he included or any other instructions that have been issued by the contractor, etc.? If the case goes to court, the court will review all the points, and the decision will be based on that. In this scenario, the CLA (Contract Labor Act) is also applicable, as the company is a government body, and they must have policies in place that can definitely protect the interests of the company.
Thank you.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively - share and document your knowledge. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Join & Be Part Of Our Community.
Notification No G.S.R. 1128(E) Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Amendment .pdf
LABOUR CONTRACT AGREEMENT.doc
Contract Labour Act.zip