Dear HR professionals,
Hi.
Just want to clarify whether , if any “Workmen hire on contract’ as per " Contract labour (Regulation and abolition ) Act, 1970” from the "contractor" and " work for more than 180 days or more" continuously in an "Establishment" , will he qualify to be "on regular payroll" of the "Establishment" as per law or as per" any clause" of other labor laws ? If yes, then kindly provides the detail of “relevant labor law with applicable provisions". Can an Establishment can permanently enroll such "Workmen" at his own discretion?
Awaiting your valuable inputs.
From India, Delhi
Hi.
Just want to clarify whether , if any “Workmen hire on contract’ as per " Contract labour (Regulation and abolition ) Act, 1970” from the "contractor" and " work for more than 180 days or more" continuously in an "Establishment" , will he qualify to be "on regular payroll" of the "Establishment" as per law or as per" any clause" of other labor laws ? If yes, then kindly provides the detail of “relevant labor law with applicable provisions". Can an Establishment can permanently enroll such "Workmen" at his own discretion?
Awaiting your valuable inputs.
From India, Delhi
Dear Bhargava
If an establishment hires labour from a contrctor who obtained license under the Contract Labour Act, such workmen will be treated as workmen of the contrctor but not that of the establishment who hires them. If the contractor has no license, there is risk of such workmen being treated as workmen of the establishment who hired them through the said contarctor since courts may view such contract as sham(false) when a dispute is raised by such contract labour for regularisation unde rthe Industrial disputes Act 1947.
B.Saikumar
HR & labour Law Consultant
Chipinbiz Consultancy Pvt.ltd
Mumbai
Mob: 09930532927
From India, Mumbai
54If an establishment hires labour from a contrctor who obtained license under the Contract Labour Act, such workmen will be treated as workmen of the contrctor but not that of the establishment who hires them. If the contractor has no license, there is risk of such workmen being treated as workmen of the establishment who hired them through the said contarctor since courts may view such contract as sham(false) when a dispute is raised by such contract labour for regularisation unde rthe Industrial disputes Act 1947.
B.Saikumar
HR & labour Law Consultant
Chipinbiz Consultancy Pvt.ltd
Mumbai
Mob: 09930532927
From India, Mumbai
nothing stops the employer from taking on some or all of the employees as permanent employee if he wishes
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Dear Bhargava
Further to what I already said, a contractor worker is not entitled to regularisation in the service of the company merely because he completes 180 days provided he is engaged by a licensed contractor. Trust this will clear your doubt.
B.Saikumar
HR & labour Law Consultant
Chipinbiz Consultancy Pvt.ltd
Mumbai
Mob:09930532927
From India, Mumbai
Further to what I already said, a contractor worker is not entitled to regularisation in the service of the company merely because he completes 180 days provided he is engaged by a licensed contractor. Trust this will clear your doubt.
B.Saikumar
HR & labour Law Consultant
Chipinbiz Consultancy Pvt.ltd
Mumbai
Mob:09930532927
From India, Mumbai
or
Thanks Mr Saikumar,
Ok now this point is clear . Can you give any reference of Judgement of "Supreme court" on the "regulization of Contract labour". It will reallly very helpful in further interpretation .
Futher , would like to clarify whether, Can Contract labour be employed on "main /core processes of the establishment" or "strictly prohibited" as per act and as well "orders of Apprepriate goverment" by notification in official Gazatee vis state to sate .
I want to clarify whether it depends on orders of stata goverments to deploy the contract labour on "core processes" of "Establishments" ? or will it differ from State to state.
Can you tell what is the rules in this respect in "Utterpradesh" and in "Haryana" and from where I can refer the state wise Contract labour regulation and abolition rules ?
Thanks,
Amit Bhargava
From India, Delhi
Thanks Mr Saikumar,
Ok now this point is clear . Can you give any reference of Judgement of "Supreme court" on the "regulization of Contract labour". It will reallly very helpful in further interpretation .
Futher , would like to clarify whether, Can Contract labour be employed on "main /core processes of the establishment" or "strictly prohibited" as per act and as well "orders of Apprepriate goverment" by notification in official Gazatee vis state to sate .
I want to clarify whether it depends on orders of stata goverments to deploy the contract labour on "core processes" of "Establishments" ? or will it differ from State to state.
Can you tell what is the rules in this respect in "Utterpradesh" and in "Haryana" and from where I can refer the state wise Contract labour regulation and abolition rules ?
Thanks,
Amit Bhargava
From India, Delhi
Dear Bhargava,
Merely completing 180 days never makes contractor workmen qualify for regulation of employment with PE. Regularisation of contract worforce is not so simple, court will see the all terms & conditions as per CLRA Act. before award for regulation of contractor workmen in any industry/estb.
To avoid any type of litigation it is always suggested to change the contractor labour with contractor. Regularisation and other IR issue are outcome of regular type of enganment of contractor labour in the establishment.
Thanking you
Rakesh Koul
9818679697
From India, Bangalore
Merely completing 180 days never makes contractor workmen qualify for regulation of employment with PE. Regularisation of contract worforce is not so simple, court will see the all terms & conditions as per CLRA Act. before award for regulation of contractor workmen in any industry/estb.
To avoid any type of litigation it is always suggested to change the contractor labour with contractor. Regularisation and other IR issue are outcome of regular type of enganment of contractor labour in the establishment.
Thanking you
Rakesh Koul
9818679697
From India, Bangalore
This is a point of dispute between professionals.
The act says contract workers can be used only in non-core and non-perennial work. However, elsewhere in the act, it says the government may notify work in which contract labour is not allowed. Some lawyers and HR professional are taking the stand that since the government has not specifically banned any activity, it is allowed.
My opinion is that since the act specifically says contract labour can only be used for non-core work, having contract workers doing production related or core jobs is not allowed. In any case, it give a chance to the workers to approach the court for relief in form of confirmation in employment or to show that the contract is a sham to prevent workers from getting their full dues.
Also, there is a provision in the act that says where you have both contract and permanent workers working, both of them must get the same wages. In that case, there is no benefit of having contract workers, except that you can remove them easily.
From India, Mumbai
The act says contract workers can be used only in non-core and non-perennial work. However, elsewhere in the act, it says the government may notify work in which contract labour is not allowed. Some lawyers and HR professional are taking the stand that since the government has not specifically banned any activity, it is allowed.
My opinion is that since the act specifically says contract labour can only be used for non-core work, having contract workers doing production related or core jobs is not allowed. In any case, it give a chance to the workers to approach the court for relief in form of confirmation in employment or to show that the contract is a sham to prevent workers from getting their full dues.
Also, there is a provision in the act that says where you have both contract and permanent workers working, both of them must get the same wages. In that case, there is no benefit of having contract workers, except that you can remove them easily.
From India, Mumbai
Dear Bhargava
You can refer to the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd & Ors V. National Union Water Front Workers & Others 2001 II LLJ 1087( Supreme Court) where in the whole scope of absorption was discussed.As regards Up & Haryana rules, it is better either to procure it from local law book stores there or the Labour department websites of respective States.
B.Saikumar
HR & Labour Law consultant
Mumbai
Tel: 09930532927
From India, Mumbai
You can refer to the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd & Ors V. National Union Water Front Workers & Others 2001 II LLJ 1087( Supreme Court) where in the whole scope of absorption was discussed.As regards Up & Haryana rules, it is better either to procure it from local law book stores there or the Labour department websites of respective States.
B.Saikumar
HR & Labour Law consultant
Mumbai
Tel: 09930532927
From India, Mumbai
Hi Saikumar,
Thanks a lot for update ! i got the case law and kindly let me know about below mentioned point .
Futher , would like to clarify whether, Can Contract labour be employed on "main /core processes of the establishment" or "strictly prohibited" as per act and as well "orders of Apprepriate goverment" by notification in official Gazatee vis state to sate .
I want to clarify whether it depends on orders of stata goverments to deploy the contract labour on "core processes" of "Establishments" ? or will it differ from State to state.
Regards,
Amit
From India, Delhi
Thanks a lot for update ! i got the case law and kindly let me know about below mentioned point .
Futher , would like to clarify whether, Can Contract labour be employed on "main /core processes of the establishment" or "strictly prohibited" as per act and as well "orders of Apprepriate goverment" by notification in official Gazatee vis state to sate .
I want to clarify whether it depends on orders of stata goverments to deploy the contract labour on "core processes" of "Establishments" ? or will it differ from State to state.
Regards,
Amit
From India, Delhi
Hi
Is there any case laws by Apex court or High courts on nature of "perennial nature of work" by contract workers ?
10. PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYMENT OF CONTRACT LABOUR. -
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the “appropriate Government” may, after consultation with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board, prohibit, by notification in the Official Gazette, employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any Establishment.
(2) Before issuing any notification under sub-section (1) in relation to an establishment, the appropriate Government shall have regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in that establishment and other relevant factors, such as –
(a) whether the process, operation or other work is incidental to, or necessary for the industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation that is carried on in the establishment;
(b) whether it is of perennial nature, that is to say, it is of sufficient duration having regard to the nature of industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation carried on in that establishment; Can you provide me with some case law as to what is meant by Sufficient duration above
(c) Whether it is done ordinarily through regular workmen in that establishment or an establishment similar thereto;
(d) Whether it is sufficient to employ considerable number of whole-time workmen. [B]How do we check this? Any case law reference defining considerable number.
Awaiting the valuable inputs .
Regards,
Amit
From India, Delhi
Is there any case laws by Apex court or High courts on nature of "perennial nature of work" by contract workers ?
10. PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYMENT OF CONTRACT LABOUR. -
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the “appropriate Government” may, after consultation with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board, prohibit, by notification in the Official Gazette, employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any Establishment.
(2) Before issuing any notification under sub-section (1) in relation to an establishment, the appropriate Government shall have regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in that establishment and other relevant factors, such as –
(a) whether the process, operation or other work is incidental to, or necessary for the industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation that is carried on in the establishment;
(b) whether it is of perennial nature, that is to say, it is of sufficient duration having regard to the nature of industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation carried on in that establishment; Can you provide me with some case law as to what is meant by Sufficient duration above
(c) Whether it is done ordinarily through regular workmen in that establishment or an establishment similar thereto;
(d) Whether it is sufficient to employ considerable number of whole-time workmen. [B]How do we check this? Any case law reference defining considerable number.
Awaiting the valuable inputs .
Regards,
Amit
From India, Delhi
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.
Kami Export - Negative Covenant in Contract of Employment.pdf (1).pdf