You can disagree, but I also agree to disagree!
We will discuss this issue in the light of a judgment by the Madras High Court reported last month only (available in the 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
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
4476We will discuss this issue in the light of a judgment by the Madras High Court reported last month only (available in the 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Kolkata
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Madhu-ji,
I am not able to find the judgment 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am not able to find the judgment 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
No, it may not be available on 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 yesterday, etc., and I reached back late midnight only!
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
There have been controversies on the terms "Contract For Service" and "Contract Of Service". There are a 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 a contract of service from a contract for service. The recent Madras High Court judgment also refers to the above case. In this case, EMKO KCP has appointed 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 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, 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. If 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 the master-servant relationship will not be present. The Hassan Cooperative Milk Society's case is an example supporting 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In the present case, 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. If 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 the master-servant relationship will not be present. The Hassan Cooperative Milk Society's case is an example supporting 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.