Under which section of ID act it is mentioned that "Casual workers is deemed to be permanent if he works for more than 240 days in a calendar year."
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
ID act does not stipulate any such conditions.
Sec.25F of ID act says:
No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until -
(a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months;
It has now been clarified by the Supreme Court that contractual employees are not regular employees and their termination does not amount to retrenchment. Also, the casual workers employed in different establishments under a single employer can now be retrenched without giving a notice even if he or she has completed 240 days of service. Thus, provisions under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 need not be complied with before retrenching a casual or contractual worker.
pon
From India, Lucknow
604Sec.25F of ID act says:
No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until -
(a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months;
It has now been clarified by the Supreme Court that contractual employees are not regular employees and their termination does not amount to retrenchment. Also, the casual workers employed in different establishments under a single employer can now be retrenched without giving a notice even if he or she has completed 240 days of service. Thus, provisions under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 need not be complied with before retrenching a casual or contractual worker.
pon
From India, Lucknow
hi all, I am also looking for the supreme court clarification, please provide. Regards, Sanjay Gupta
From India, Delhi
From India, Delhi
Casual Workers are those employees who have been engaged for work which is essentially casual in nature. This definition finds mention in the Standing Orders.
There is no provision in the ID Act which specifically addresses Casual Workers.
Section 25 B of the ID Act, defines continuous service and Section 25F deals with Conditions Precedent to Retrenchment.
Therefore, inference can be drawn that if a workman works for a continuous period of 240 days he will be deemed to have worked for one year and therefore the provisions of Section 25 F would apply.
To my understanding, there is no provisions in the ID Act which confers the status of a Permanent Workman.
Best Wishes,
Vasant Nair
From India, Mumbai
There is no provision in the ID Act which specifically addresses Casual Workers.
Section 25 B of the ID Act, defines continuous service and Section 25F deals with Conditions Precedent to Retrenchment.
Therefore, inference can be drawn that if a workman works for a continuous period of 240 days he will be deemed to have worked for one year and therefore the provisions of Section 25 F would apply.
To my understanding, there is no provisions in the ID Act which confers the status of a Permanent Workman.
Best Wishes,
Vasant Nair
From India, Mumbai
Hello,
You are looking for the information in the WRONG place please.
It is NOT the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 BUT the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 that has answer to your question.
Kindly look at Clause 4-C of the Model Standing Orders for "Workmen doing manual and technical work". These are provided at Schedule I to the "Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules 1959. This provision came in as an amendment sometime in 1978.
I do not know if such an amendment has been made in ....Rules in other states. If you are not from Maharashtra, it is necessary for you to check if a similar provision exists in the related rules for your state
Trust tis will clarify the issue to all who have participated in this thread!!
Regards
samvedan
May 2, 2011
----------------
From India, Pune
You are looking for the information in the WRONG place please.
It is NOT the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 BUT the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 that has answer to your question.
Kindly look at Clause 4-C of the Model Standing Orders for "Workmen doing manual and technical work". These are provided at Schedule I to the "Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules 1959. This provision came in as an amendment sometime in 1978.
I do not know if such an amendment has been made in ....Rules in other states. If you are not from Maharashtra, it is necessary for you to check if a similar provision exists in the related rules for your state
Trust tis will clarify the issue to all who have participated in this thread!!
Regards
samvedan
May 2, 2011
----------------
From India, Pune
read here
Worker can be sacked even if he has put in 240 days of work: SC - Times Of India
From India, Lucknow
Worker can be sacked even if he has put in 240 days of work: SC - Times Of India
From India, Lucknow
Dear Vasant,
You are correct in saying that working for 240 days does not create any right in workman to seek permanent status in the employment of the management.
More to it. the logic of 240 days with regard to permanency in service is, if some workman is doing a work for more than 240 days it may be presumed that the work is perennial in nature and a casual workman is employed against a permanent nature of work, just to deprive the workman for his legally entitled employment benefits. but any casual workman who completes the 240 days cannot automatically become permanent in the services of the management.
But it is also true 240 days gives right to receive retrenchment compensation in case his employment is ended by the management other than by way of punishment for any misconduct. the compensation is 15 days salary for per completed year of service.
From India, New Delhi
You are correct in saying that working for 240 days does not create any right in workman to seek permanent status in the employment of the management.
More to it. the logic of 240 days with regard to permanency in service is, if some workman is doing a work for more than 240 days it may be presumed that the work is perennial in nature and a casual workman is employed against a permanent nature of work, just to deprive the workman for his legally entitled employment benefits. but any casual workman who completes the 240 days cannot automatically become permanent in the services of the management.
But it is also true 240 days gives right to receive retrenchment compensation in case his employment is ended by the management other than by way of punishment for any misconduct. the compensation is 15 days salary for per completed year of service.
From India, New Delhi
Dear all,
There is this case, wherein 1 apprentice worked for 14 months and his services were terminated despite good ratings. Though, it was understood that after 6 months, on good recommendation of his superior, apprentice may be absorbed in the organisation.
After few months again, the same apprentice was absorbed in the same organisation on company's pay rolls; but after 6 months of probationary period, his probation was extended by another 3 months (verbal communication was that his services are not to the mark).
Can this Officer sustain in organisation or can he be sacked by the HR- Head, since this officer did not get the confirmation.
regards
Naveen Kumar
From India, Mumbai
There is this case, wherein 1 apprentice worked for 14 months and his services were terminated despite good ratings. Though, it was understood that after 6 months, on good recommendation of his superior, apprentice may be absorbed in the organisation.
After few months again, the same apprentice was absorbed in the same organisation on company's pay rolls; but after 6 months of probationary period, his probation was extended by another 3 months (verbal communication was that his services are not to the mark).
Can this Officer sustain in organisation or can he be sacked by the HR- Head, since this officer did not get the confirmation.
regards
Naveen Kumar
From India, Mumbai
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.
Equal pay for Equal work - casual workers.pdf