How can I understand if the job is not perennial in nature or not necessary or incidental for the occupation or business under Section 10 of CLRA Act 1970?
Is there any mention of jobs where I cannot engage contract labor?
In a dispute situation, management has agreed to hire contract labor after the end of the agreement. To formalize this agreement, management takes 15-20 days. During this time, for the first 15 to 20 days, contract laborers work in the factory, not under the contractor, but because they are being compelled to work.
Would this be considered a sham contract? In that case, would they be working under the principal employer?
If they work for 15-20 days under the principal employer, can they demand absorption by the principal employer?
Is there a limit on the number of days one can work under a principal employer or in a job of a perennial nature, which would require management to absorb them?
Please respond urgently.
From India, Kolkata
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
4Is there any mention of jobs where I cannot engage contract labor?
In a dispute situation, management has agreed to hire contract labor after the end of the agreement. To formalize this agreement, management takes 15-20 days. During this time, for the first 15 to 20 days, contract laborers work in the factory, not under the contractor, but because they are being compelled to work.
Would this be considered a sham contract? In that case, would they be working under the principal employer?
If they work for 15-20 days under the principal employer, can they demand absorption by the principal employer?
Is there a limit on the number of days one can work under a principal employer or in a job of a perennial nature, which would require management to absorb them?
Please respond urgently.
From India, Kolkata
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Sakshar,
This is in continuation of the thread posted by you on 6th Aug 2014, I think. Each and every industrial dispute is unique, and only the wearer knows where the shoe pinches exactly. Honestly, if you are looking for the most appropriate suggestion for the problem you are actually facing, a volley of questions in installments after implementing your suo moto decisions should be avoided. On the other hand, had all the details relating to the operations of the establishment and the issues been specifically presented in a single thread, it would enable others to view the issues in totality and offer their remarks more specifically rather than as mere generalizations.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This is in continuation of the thread posted by you on 6th Aug 2014, I think. Each and every industrial dispute is unique, and only the wearer knows where the shoe pinches exactly. Honestly, if you are looking for the most appropriate suggestion for the problem you are actually facing, a volley of questions in installments after implementing your suo moto decisions should be avoided. On the other hand, had all the details relating to the operations of the establishment and the issues been specifically presented in a single thread, it would enable others to view the issues in totality and offer their remarks more specifically rather than as mere generalizations.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Sakshar,
With reference to your query, please note the following regarding the Andhra Pradesh Contract Labour Act 2003 Amendment.
The State amendment of Andhra Pradesh in 2003 introduced a clause that restricts the employment of Contract Labour in core activities of any establishment if the same was prohibited by Notification. However, it also introduced the following exemptions:
- The normal functioning of the establishments is such that the activity is ordinarily done through contractors; or
- The activities are such that they do not require full-time workers for the major portion of the working hours in a day or for longer periods, as the case may be;
- Any sudden increase in the volume of work in the core activity that needs to be accomplished in a specified time.
The Andhra Pradesh Amendment also introduced a definition clause for "core activities" of an establishment, which means any activity for which the establishment is set up, including any activity that is essential or necessary to the core activity. It also provides certain exceptions which are as follows:
1. Sanitation works, including sweeping, cleaning, dusting, and collection and disposal of all kinds of waste;
2. Watch and ward services, including security service;
3. Canteen and catering services;
4. Loading and unloading operations;
5. Running of hospitals, educational and training institutions, guest houses, clubs, and the like where they are in the nature of support services of an establishment;
6. Courier services which are in the nature of support services of an establishment;
7. Civil and other constructional works, including maintenance;
8. Gardening and maintenance of lawns, etc;
9. Housekeeping and laundry services, etc., where they are in the nature of support services of an establishment;
10. Transport services including ambulance services;
11. Any activity of intermittent nature, even if that constitutes a core activity of an establishment; and
12. Any other activity that is incidental to the core activity.
Additionally, a rider was introduced by the Andhra Pradesh Amendment that the above 12 activities by themselves should not be the core activities of such an establishment.
Thanks & Regards,
V R RAO PULIPAKA
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
With reference to your query, please note the following regarding the Andhra Pradesh Contract Labour Act 2003 Amendment.
The State amendment of Andhra Pradesh in 2003 introduced a clause that restricts the employment of Contract Labour in core activities of any establishment if the same was prohibited by Notification. However, it also introduced the following exemptions:
- The normal functioning of the establishments is such that the activity is ordinarily done through contractors; or
- The activities are such that they do not require full-time workers for the major portion of the working hours in a day or for longer periods, as the case may be;
- Any sudden increase in the volume of work in the core activity that needs to be accomplished in a specified time.
The Andhra Pradesh Amendment also introduced a definition clause for "core activities" of an establishment, which means any activity for which the establishment is set up, including any activity that is essential or necessary to the core activity. It also provides certain exceptions which are as follows:
1. Sanitation works, including sweeping, cleaning, dusting, and collection and disposal of all kinds of waste;
2. Watch and ward services, including security service;
3. Canteen and catering services;
4. Loading and unloading operations;
5. Running of hospitals, educational and training institutions, guest houses, clubs, and the like where they are in the nature of support services of an establishment;
6. Courier services which are in the nature of support services of an establishment;
7. Civil and other constructional works, including maintenance;
8. Gardening and maintenance of lawns, etc;
9. Housekeeping and laundry services, etc., where they are in the nature of support services of an establishment;
10. Transport services including ambulance services;
11. Any activity of intermittent nature, even if that constitutes a core activity of an establishment; and
12. Any other activity that is incidental to the core activity.
Additionally, a rider was introduced by the Andhra Pradesh Amendment that the above 12 activities by themselves should not be the core activities of such an establishment.
Thanks & Regards,
V R RAO PULIPAKA
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Yes, sir,
There are two issues raised:
1. The workers who previously worked - did they really work under the principal employer or not?
Yes, they worked under the principal employer where the contractor did not exist for that short period. Okay.
2. There is no question of regularizing their services even though they directly worked under the umbrella of the principal employer for that short period. Previously, there was a clause that if the worker directly worked for 180 days of continuous service, there was a possibility of regularization when vacancies arose. Now, APSRTC and electricity employees have been working for years together still on contract, removed before completing 180 days, and then reappointed, resuming duties. So, the regularization of contract labor by the principal employer is a policy decision taken by the government only, whenever it deems fit.
Moreover, the new contractor has every right to recruit anyone of his choice. However, generally, already working people can be absorbed by the new contractor on humanitarian grounds and based on their quality. No one can stop this. It is advisable to take precautions by giving fresh appointments rather than continuing the previous service with the principal employer.
All the best, sir.
From India, Nellore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
There are two issues raised:
1. The workers who previously worked - did they really work under the principal employer or not?
Yes, they worked under the principal employer where the contractor did not exist for that short period. Okay.
2. There is no question of regularizing their services even though they directly worked under the umbrella of the principal employer for that short period. Previously, there was a clause that if the worker directly worked for 180 days of continuous service, there was a possibility of regularization when vacancies arose. Now, APSRTC and electricity employees have been working for years together still on contract, removed before completing 180 days, and then reappointed, resuming duties. So, the regularization of contract labor by the principal employer is a policy decision taken by the government only, whenever it deems fit.
Moreover, the new contractor has every right to recruit anyone of his choice. However, generally, already working people can be absorbed by the new contractor on humanitarian grounds and based on their quality. No one can stop this. It is advisable to take precautions by giving fresh appointments rather than continuing the previous service with the principal employer.
All the best, sir.
From India, Nellore
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.
SELF-CERTIFICAT E PROFORMA UNNDER CONTRACT LABOUR (R&A) ACT, 1970.doc
Contract Labour Act.zip