Dear Adil,
This is the 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
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1656This is the 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am sorry to differ from the comments of Mr. R.K. Singh and rather feel that issuance of FRESH Form V against separate Work Orders (even within the same premises) is not only preferable but also advisable.
Think of a situation where a large Construction Company is entrusted with a contract for "Pile Foundation" for a Thermal Power Plant of the State Electricity Board, and the Principal Employer issues Form V. Subsequently, during the currency of the said contract, the Principal Employer (the "Client") decides to entrust the same Construction Company with a second contract for "Construction of Civil Works for Coal Handling Plant," a third contract for "Construction of Chimney," a fourth for "Construction of Cooling Tower," and issues separate work orders for each contract.
Now, the Contractor has the option of either increasing the strength of the "Labour Licence" (obtained for "Pile Foundation" work), thereby adding further numbers to the Licensed capacity of the Licence, or approaching the Principal Employer for separate Form V for the execution of each work.
The advantage of the second option is that the Licence obtained for each individual contract can be surrendered for cancellation upon submission of a "Certificate of completion" from the Principal Employer. This option is more acceptable as otherwise the "Licensed Capacity" (strength of the first license taken) would be reduced to the required extent. This proposition is beyond law since the Act does not provide for a reduction in the strength of "Licensed Capacity."
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Think of a situation where a large Construction Company is entrusted with a contract for "Pile Foundation" for a Thermal Power Plant of the State Electricity Board, and the Principal Employer issues Form V. Subsequently, during the currency of the said contract, the Principal Employer (the "Client") decides to entrust the same Construction Company with a second contract for "Construction of Civil Works for Coal Handling Plant," a third contract for "Construction of Chimney," a fourth for "Construction of Cooling Tower," and issues separate work orders for each contract.
Now, the Contractor has the option of either increasing the strength of the "Labour Licence" (obtained for "Pile Foundation" work), thereby adding further numbers to the Licensed capacity of the Licence, or approaching the Principal Employer for separate Form V for the execution of each work.
The advantage of the second option is that the Licence obtained for each individual contract can be surrendered for cancellation upon submission of a "Certificate of completion" from the Principal Employer. This option is more acceptable as otherwise the "Licensed Capacity" (strength of the first license taken) would be reduced to the required extent. This proposition is beyond law since the Act does not provide for a reduction in the strength of "Licensed Capacity."
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The principal employer issues Form V on the basis of a work order issued to a contractor. If multiple work orders are issued within one premises, the principal employer is bound to issue a separate Form V. On that basis, a contractor can have a separate license.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Rule 28 of the Contract Labour Rules provides for an amendment to the license already granted. This means that when the contractor is given new or additional contract work by the Principal Employer (PE) in the same premises, the contractor has to apply for an amendment. The application should mention the nature of the required amendment, the reason for it, and any changes in the particulars already furnished in Form IV.
When the statute provides certain procedures for the contractor to amend their license upon receiving new or additional jobs, it is advisable for the contractor to hold only a single license for all the contract work in a particular establishment. This approach is preferable to requiring the contractor to obtain several separate licenses. We have obtained more than 40 contract licenses in various companies for different works in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh, using only one Form V.
N. Nataraajhan, Sakthi Management Services
Mobile: +91 94835 17402
Email: natraj@sakthimanagement.com
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
When the statute provides certain procedures for the contractor to amend their license upon receiving new or additional jobs, it is advisable for the contractor to hold only a single license for all the contract work in a particular establishment. This approach is preferable to requiring the contractor to obtain several separate licenses. We have obtained more than 40 contract licenses in various companies for different works in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh, using only one Form V.
N. Nataraajhan, Sakthi Management Services
Mobile: +91 94835 17402
Email: natraj@sakthimanagement.com
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Very fruitful discussion on the issue. Looking at the following advantages, it is always advisable to issue a separate Form V if the nature of the job is different from the issued work order/PO.
1. The contractor can surrender the labor license for which the job is completed and claim the refund of the security deposit.
2. As an employer, it will be easier to monitor the productivity of each job as the allocated MPs have different skill sets, and the contractor can't manipulate the numbers of labor.
3. In case of any accident, the employer can hold the contractor accountable for any unlawful use of labor.
Sometimes we have to think beyond the law considering the current scenario and the contractor's smartness, and most importantly, to safeguard the organization's interests.
From India, Vadodara
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
1. The contractor can surrender the labor license for which the job is completed and claim the refund of the security deposit.
2. As an employer, it will be easier to monitor the productivity of each job as the allocated MPs have different skill sets, and the contractor can't manipulate the numbers of labor.
3. In case of any accident, the employer can hold the contractor accountable for any unlawful use of labor.
Sometimes we have to think beyond the law considering the current scenario and the contractor's smartness, and most importantly, to safeguard the organization's interests.
From India, Vadodara
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The follow-up response of our learned brother Mr. Nataraajhan and his arguments advanced therein favoring a single contractor's license by means of amendments to an existing license 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 license 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 license is a pertinent issue. Since the license is non-transferable, there cannot be an amendment in regard to the licensee or the PE. Since the renewal of the license 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 license 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 number 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 license 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Amendment of an existing license 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 license is a pertinent issue. Since the license is non-transferable, there cannot be an amendment in regard to the licensee or the PE. Since the renewal of the license 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 license 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 number 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 license 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
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.
Employer-employ ee_866.jpg
Employer-PF-res trict to wages of Rs 6500.pdf