A group of workmen working at Janahhar under contractor of IRCTC and terminated after 3/4 years without notice and compensation - workmen made appeal to labour commissioner and conciliation is going on, IRCTC presents a submission in writen that they are not principal employer, and have a agreement with contractor principal to principal - what means it? They submitted that as per the new catering policy,2010 of Railway board, it is transferred to railways then to new licensee- temporary control given to IRCTC. So the Indian Railways have a statutory duty to provide catering service its passenger, IRCTC is a subsidiary and new contractor working in same place and building with new worker and work is same nature to provide cooking food stuff - workmen pray that-reinstatement with full back wages. Please comments on possibility of the case.
From India, Kolkata
3From India, Kolkata
Dear friend,
Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation [ IRCTC ] is a subsidiary of the Indian Raiways. One of its functions is to provide food and beverages to passengers on board and running of canteens in Railway stations.From what you have said quoting the recent catering policy the Railway Board, it appears that the above services have been done through contract system. If so, the position of the Railways would be that of the Principal Employer and the IRCTC would be of Contractor under the Contract Labour Act.IRCTC, for effective business purposes may be sub-contracting the services to others. However, a sub-contractor is also a contractor under the CLRA Act,1970.
From India, Salem
Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation [ IRCTC ] is a subsidiary of the Indian Raiways. One of its functions is to provide food and beverages to passengers on board and running of canteens in Railway stations.From what you have said quoting the recent catering policy the Railway Board, it appears that the above services have been done through contract system. If so, the position of the Railways would be that of the Principal Employer and the IRCTC would be of Contractor under the Contract Labour Act.IRCTC, for effective business purposes may be sub-contracting the services to others. However, a sub-contractor is also a contractor under the CLRA Act,1970.
From India, Salem
we are changing in my ofiice local from one place to another place what form shoud submit in labour office,address change letter pls send me
From India, Tirupati
From India, Tirupati
Thank you for your thread, some thing i cleared that portion of my question on principal employer but you 0r any one on the question of possibility of reinstatement of workers with full back wages and other part of my question
From India, Kolkata
From India, Kolkata
Dear friend,
Let's try to understand the problem as it is and approach it in an unbiased manner even though the ultimate sufferrers are the poor contract workmen of the erstwhile sub-contractor engaged by the IRCTC. In the absence of any mention about the duration of the contract as agreed between the IRCTC and the sub-contractor, I am not sure about on whom the liability to grant relief to the affected workmen should be fixed. If the foreclosure of the contract in violation of the period fixed in the agreement without any valid reasons is attributable on the part of the IRCTC, then the IRCTC should also be proceeded against for an appropriate relief including monetary compensation for non-employment.If the termination of the contract between the IRCTC and the sub-contractor is on account of expiration of the agreed period and subsequent non-renewal, the IRCTC is not responsible in anyway; it is the look-out of the sub-contractor to secure continued employment for his workmen elsewhere or if not possible settle their dues as per Law.Please, also bear in mind whether the affected workmen were specially recruited for the IRCTC contract.
From India, Salem
Let's try to understand the problem as it is and approach it in an unbiased manner even though the ultimate sufferrers are the poor contract workmen of the erstwhile sub-contractor engaged by the IRCTC. In the absence of any mention about the duration of the contract as agreed between the IRCTC and the sub-contractor, I am not sure about on whom the liability to grant relief to the affected workmen should be fixed. If the foreclosure of the contract in violation of the period fixed in the agreement without any valid reasons is attributable on the part of the IRCTC, then the IRCTC should also be proceeded against for an appropriate relief including monetary compensation for non-employment.If the termination of the contract between the IRCTC and the sub-contractor is on account of expiration of the agreed period and subsequent non-renewal, the IRCTC is not responsible in anyway; it is the look-out of the sub-contractor to secure continued employment for his workmen elsewhere or if not possible settle their dues as per Law.Please, also bear in mind whether the affected workmen were specially recruited for the IRCTC contract.
From India, Salem
Sir(s),
The case as cited by the member who initiated this thread is perhaps one of the serious issues facing present day labour matters and disputes. Perhaps labour unions on all India level are also demanding abolition or amendments in Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. In one of its judgment in the year 2011 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has remarked" It has been clearly stated therein that subterfuge was resorted to by the appellant to show that the workmen concerned were only workmen of a contractor. The Labour Court has held that the workmen were the employees of the appellant and not employees of the contractor."
The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BHILWARA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI S. LTD. is attached herewith. I hope that this judgment may be of some help in the matter.
From India, Noida
The case as cited by the member who initiated this thread is perhaps one of the serious issues facing present day labour matters and disputes. Perhaps labour unions on all India level are also demanding abolition or amendments in Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. In one of its judgment in the year 2011 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has remarked" It has been clearly stated therein that subterfuge was resorted to by the appellant to show that the workmen concerned were only workmen of a contractor. The Labour Court has held that the workmen were the employees of the appellant and not employees of the contractor."
The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BHILWARA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI S. LTD. is attached herewith. I hope that this judgment may be of some help in the matter.
From India, Noida
Ok, discussion is helpful to me, conclusion is that Indian Railways is the principal employer as by the ( VIII of the Indian Railways Act 1989, it is statutory duty bound to the railways to provide catering service to its passengers and IRCTC is the contractor and others are sub Contractors..
Now my submission is that the transferred of catering unit to another contractor, Licensee any one even for other activity not permitted or cessation or continuity of services.where in similar kind of work which is perennial in nature.IR,IRCTC & contractor has committed a statutory offense punishable u/s 25U of 1947 Act for employing concerned workmen on contract basis with a break of their service which constitute unfair labour practice and prohibited u/s 25 T of 1947 Act either by the employer or workmen under sch. V of 1947 Act ( See identical case of Balawant Raj Saluja and anotheretc Vs. Air India Ltd and other ( SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 13 Nov 2013 and another Judgement of SUPREME COURT OF INDIA< 21 Oct, 20139 (State of Maharastha and another vs. Sarva shramil Sangh, Sangil and others)
I am sharing with you and others for comments
From India, Kolkata
Now my submission is that the transferred of catering unit to another contractor, Licensee any one even for other activity not permitted or cessation or continuity of services.where in similar kind of work which is perennial in nature.IR,IRCTC & contractor has committed a statutory offense punishable u/s 25U of 1947 Act for employing concerned workmen on contract basis with a break of their service which constitute unfair labour practice and prohibited u/s 25 T of 1947 Act either by the employer or workmen under sch. V of 1947 Act ( See identical case of Balawant Raj Saluja and anotheretc Vs. Air India Ltd and other ( SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 13 Nov 2013 and another Judgement of SUPREME COURT OF INDIA< 21 Oct, 20139 (State of Maharastha and another vs. Sarva shramil Sangh, Sangil and others)
I am sharing with you and others for comments
From India, Kolkata
Sir,
Thanks for intimating about recent judgments of hon'ble Supreme Court. However, I have observed that these judgments relate to Industrial Dispute Act and are not under Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970. However, hope that the said judgments may lead to further judgments in favour of working class as a whole.
From India, Noida
Thanks for intimating about recent judgments of hon'ble Supreme Court. However, I have observed that these judgments relate to Industrial Dispute Act and are not under Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970. However, hope that the said judgments may lead to further judgments in favour of working class as a whole.
From India, Noida
thank you all for comments. When if Indian railway is principal employer and irctc is contractor & other is sub- contractor , who will be responsible for termination or compensation or continuity of services,?
why not labour commissioner called IR as a party, when providing catering service is the statutory duty of the Indian Railway and IR is continue to do so through irctc via licensee, where in all the case IR is the decision makers and controller.please comment on...
From India, Kolkata
why not labour commissioner called IR as a party, when providing catering service is the statutory duty of the Indian Railway and IR is continue to do so through irctc via licensee, where in all the case IR is the decision makers and controller.please comment on...
From India, Kolkata
All the dear friends contributing to this thread,
While appreciating the valuable points expressed so far, I would like to raise a basic question - whether supply of food and beverages to passengers on board can be considered as a statutory obligation cast upon the Indian Railways?
From India, Salem
While appreciating the valuable points expressed so far, I would like to raise a basic question - whether supply of food and beverages to passengers on board can be considered as a statutory obligation cast upon the Indian Railways?
From India, Salem
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
TAMIMI LAbor LAw.pdf