Dear Saswata,
I appreciate your persistence in looking for authoritative instructions on these, backed by judicial decisions or orders. However, let us accept the fact that there cannot be an order or judgment on every aspect of life unless such cases mushroom and become a serious widespread concern. Thus, even in the absence of an order or judgment, we should apply our minds without any prejudice or favor, and think rationally with the philosophy of welfare and equity. There are always unwritten rules and customs that are fair and just. We should know the best practices of the industry and apply them.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1446I appreciate your persistence in looking for authoritative instructions on these, backed by judicial decisions or orders. However, let us accept the fact that there cannot be an order or judgment on every aspect of life unless such cases mushroom and become a serious widespread concern. Thus, even in the absence of an order or judgment, we should apply our minds without any prejudice or favor, and think rationally with the philosophy of welfare and equity. There are always unwritten rules and customs that are fair and just. We should know the best practices of the industry and apply them.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Sirs,
Even though the helmet is considered as protective equipment, it is used in all places for private and official use. (Referring to wearing a helmet as protective gear, Tamil Actor Mr. Ajith Kumar stated in a press conference, "Sweating is better than bleeding"). We are discussing the personal protective equipment (PPE) required to be used within the work premises. It is the responsibility of the employer to provide a safe working environment for their employees. Therefore, the PPE is provided free of cost. However, if a worker absconds with the PPE and subsequently leaves the job, the supplied PPE becomes wasted. Individuals would not use safety shoes or safety jackets that have been used by others, even if the employer offers them for free. This lack of control over the expenditure on purchasing PPE is why I suggested that for those who leave the workplace before the stipulated tenure, the cost of the PPEs can be recovered on a prorata basis.
Thank you.
From India, Kumbakonam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Even though the helmet is considered as protective equipment, it is used in all places for private and official use. (Referring to wearing a helmet as protective gear, Tamil Actor Mr. Ajith Kumar stated in a press conference, "Sweating is better than bleeding"). We are discussing the personal protective equipment (PPE) required to be used within the work premises. It is the responsibility of the employer to provide a safe working environment for their employees. Therefore, the PPE is provided free of cost. However, if a worker absconds with the PPE and subsequently leaves the job, the supplied PPE becomes wasted. Individuals would not use safety shoes or safety jackets that have been used by others, even if the employer offers them for free. This lack of control over the expenditure on purchasing PPE is why I suggested that for those who leave the workplace before the stipulated tenure, the cost of the PPEs can be recovered on a prorata basis.
Thank you.
From India, Kumbakonam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This is a standard reason mentioned by contractors in many places where we conduct audits. They mention that people leave without notice and take away the PPE, and we cannot afford to provide new ones each time. The principal employer does not pay for this separately as it is included in the computed rate.
To resolve this issue, we need to come up with a fair solution, regardless of what the audit report states. Some solutions that have been suggested from time to time include:
- Keeping a set of helmets and shoes in the factory for new employees to use. After 1 week, they can be provided with new ones. The cost of the PPE is offset by the unpaid wages if the employee leaves without notice.
- Asking the employee to pay for the PPE when they join and reimbursing it with their salary after a month of work. However, this may not comply with certain regulations.
- Having the employee purchase their own shoes and helmet as a condition of joining and reimbursing them with their first wages.
It is challenging to keep a common set of shoes for new employees due to hygiene concerns, but helmets and goggles seem to be acceptable.
It is evident that neither the contractor nor the principal employer is willing to bear the cost of PPE each time a new employee joins. Therefore, a prorate adjustment may be the most suitable solution, though its implications under the act need to be considered.
In a quote by boss2966, the importance of providing PPEs for workplace safety is emphasized. Recovering the cost of PPEs from employees who leave before the stipulated tenure on a prorated basis is suggested as a solution.
Let's explore more practical ideas to address this challenge effectively.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
To resolve this issue, we need to come up with a fair solution, regardless of what the audit report states. Some solutions that have been suggested from time to time include:
- Keeping a set of helmets and shoes in the factory for new employees to use. After 1 week, they can be provided with new ones. The cost of the PPE is offset by the unpaid wages if the employee leaves without notice.
- Asking the employee to pay for the PPE when they join and reimbursing it with their salary after a month of work. However, this may not comply with certain regulations.
- Having the employee purchase their own shoes and helmet as a condition of joining and reimbursing them with their first wages.
It is challenging to keep a common set of shoes for new employees due to hygiene concerns, but helmets and goggles seem to be acceptable.
It is evident that neither the contractor nor the principal employer is willing to bear the cost of PPE each time a new employee joins. Therefore, a prorate adjustment may be the most suitable solution, though its implications under the act need to be considered.
In a quote by boss2966, the importance of providing PPEs for workplace safety is emphasized. Recovering the cost of PPEs from employees who leave before the stipulated tenure on a prorated basis is suggested as a solution.
Let's explore more practical ideas to address this challenge effectively.
From India, Mumbai
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.