Dear Mr. Soni,
Labour law is to be interpreted based on the actual situation. Your generalized question has been answered. Please refer to my response on the 29th. I still stand by it.
Secondly, every contract laborer is an employee of some employer and hence covered under the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act. However, the Principal employer is only required to comply with the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act (Section 21). Be specific about the obligations of the employer or Principal employer. I hope this clarifies the issue.
Best wishes.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
99Labour law is to be interpreted based on the actual situation. Your generalized question has been answered. Please refer to my response on the 29th. I still stand by it.
Secondly, every contract laborer is an employee of some employer and hence covered under the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act. However, the Principal employer is only required to comply with the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act (Section 21). Be specific about the obligations of the employer or Principal employer. I hope this clarifies the issue.
Best wishes.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sai Kumar, Nair
The industrial dispute will be raised against the principal employer or the contractor? Can the contract worker raise an industrial dispute against the principal employer or factory? It seems to be going against the concept or design of contract labour.
Again, can he raise an industrial dispute against the contractor? He does not come under the definition of a factory (his business is not an industry). Furthermore, what happens if the contractor workers are working in a commercial establishment, or in something like a construction project? Will the same rules apply?
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The industrial dispute will be raised against the principal employer or the contractor? Can the contract worker raise an industrial dispute against the principal employer or factory? It seems to be going against the concept or design of contract labour.
Again, can he raise an industrial dispute against the contractor? He does not come under the definition of a factory (his business is not an industry). Furthermore, what happens if the contractor workers are working in a commercial establishment, or in something like a construction project? Will the same rules apply?
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Saswata Benarjee
A contract worker has an employer-employee relationship with the contractor and hence is a workman of the contractor within the meaning of Sec. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, they can raise an industrial dispute about any term of employment or conditions of service against the contractor only. The definition of industry under Sec. 2(j) is so broad that it is not confined to a factory or trade, but to any systematic activity carried out with the help of persons employed on wages. It includes even a calling, service, or profession, irrespective of whether it earns a profit or not. This is the essence of the Apex Court's decision in the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage case, which is the definitive ruling on the definition of industry. Therefore, a contractor's firm is also considered an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act.
However, contract workers can raise an industrial dispute about a claim - for example, regularization - against the principal employer on the grounds that the contract is a camouflage or sham. This is because only the industrial tribunal under the I.D. Act has the jurisdiction to determine the nature of the contract as a sham or not and the status of a person as a workman of the principal employer or not. The Appropriate Government under Sec. 10 of the Contract Labour Act does not have this authority. This principle is based on the Apex Court's decision in Steel Authority of India Ltd & Ors v. National Union Waterfront Workers & Ors 2001 II LLJ Page 1087.
B. Saikumar
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
A contract worker has an employer-employee relationship with the contractor and hence is a workman of the contractor within the meaning of Sec. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, they can raise an industrial dispute about any term of employment or conditions of service against the contractor only. The definition of industry under Sec. 2(j) is so broad that it is not confined to a factory or trade, but to any systematic activity carried out with the help of persons employed on wages. It includes even a calling, service, or profession, irrespective of whether it earns a profit or not. This is the essence of the Apex Court's decision in the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage case, which is the definitive ruling on the definition of industry. Therefore, a contractor's firm is also considered an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act.
However, contract workers can raise an industrial dispute about a claim - for example, regularization - against the principal employer on the grounds that the contract is a camouflage or sham. This is because only the industrial tribunal under the I.D. Act has the jurisdiction to determine the nature of the contract as a sham or not and the status of a person as a workman of the principal employer or not. The Appropriate Government under Sec. 10 of the Contract Labour Act does not have this authority. This principle is based on the Apex Court's decision in Steel Authority of India Ltd & Ors v. National Union Waterfront Workers & Ors 2001 II LLJ Page 1087.
B. Saikumar
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
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.
Public Notice from Government of Maharashtra Department of Labour Bonus payment through banks on.pdf