Hi Folks,
One of my labor contractors wanted to cancel his old license and take a new one in his relative's name and continue the labors working under his old license. What are the implications, complications, and consequences for this act?
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
One of my labor contractors wanted to cancel his old license and take a new one in his relative's name and continue the labors working under his old license. What are the implications, complications, and consequences for this act?
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
There is no such cancellation of a license, but there can be a suspension of a license by the Licensing officer if he finds that the license has been obtained by misrepresentation or if the rules are not being followed by the Contractor. He can also amend it. The license will stand canceled if he does not renew it after its expiry.
Now if he does not want to be a contractor, he can terminate the contract with you. After that, you can issue Form VI to his relatives so that he can take a fresh license in his name and continue working with the same employees. These are the possible ways by which he can get away from the legal formalities. But I would say that, as a principal employer, you should not encourage it. Keeping the employees unchanged under various contractors would be viewed as an attempt to defray the legal rights of workers, and the contract will be treated just as a camouflage or windscreen and thus a sham contract. Once it is established that the contract is sham or is executed for namesake only, you will be in trouble and may even lead to the regularization of service of contract workers. Taking legal opinion on behalf of the contractor itself is evidence to show that your contract with the contractor is sham. Therefore, get out of it if your firm believes in genuineness.
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
4771Now if he does not want to be a contractor, he can terminate the contract with you. After that, you can issue Form VI to his relatives so that he can take a fresh license in his name and continue working with the same employees. These are the possible ways by which he can get away from the legal formalities. But I would say that, as a principal employer, you should not encourage it. Keeping the employees unchanged under various contractors would be viewed as an attempt to defray the legal rights of workers, and the contract will be treated just as a camouflage or windscreen and thus a sham contract. Once it is established that the contract is sham or is executed for namesake only, you will be in trouble and may even lead to the regularization of service of contract workers. Taking legal opinion on behalf of the contractor itself is evidence to show that your contract with the contractor is sham. Therefore, get out of it if your firm believes in genuineness.
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
A better way is for the contractor to sell his business to his relative and inform you of the same with a request to transfer the contract. However, you must make sure that the agreement for sale includes a clause to protect gratuity dues of the workers.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Madhu Sir,
In our establishment, we outsource intermittent jobs to contractors. Sometimes, it happens that one contractor succeeds in getting multiple jobs (say three) through a competitive bidding process. He deploys 19 laborers in each contract, resulting in the deployment of 57 laborers in a particular day. However, he doesn't have the required license.
We consulted the Regional Labour Commissioner, who informed us that since he is deploying 19 laborers in one contract, he doesn't need any specific license. The Contract Labor (CL) Act pertains to the employment of contract laborers, not deployment. Your esteemed opinion on this matter would be greatly appreciated.
Furthermore, what precautions should a Principal Employer (PE) take when a contract laborer changes their contractor within the same establishment?
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In our establishment, we outsource intermittent jobs to contractors. Sometimes, it happens that one contractor succeeds in getting multiple jobs (say three) through a competitive bidding process. He deploys 19 laborers in each contract, resulting in the deployment of 57 laborers in a particular day. However, he doesn't have the required license.
We consulted the Regional Labour Commissioner, who informed us that since he is deploying 19 laborers in one contract, he doesn't need any specific license. The Contract Labor (CL) Act pertains to the employment of contract laborers, not deployment. Your esteemed opinion on this matter would be greatly appreciated.
Furthermore, what precautions should a Principal Employer (PE) take when a contract laborer changes their contractor within the same establishment?
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This type of changeover is very common in offloading/outsourcing certain regular work of medium and large industries/companies with a view to averting demands for regularization, payment of bonuses, gratuity, and other benefits. However, your problems as a PE are not going to be solved forever since the same workers are going to continue almost the same duties. It would be better to close the contract after completing the work order assigned by fulfilling the formalities, especially wages overdue, EPF/ESI contributions, and other dues, and then hire a fresh contractor.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I think either you conveyed wrong information to the RLC or on the forum. Otherwise, I don't understand how the RLC can give such a reply. If a contractor has more than 19 workers at one site, he needs a license. It does not matter what each of them is doing or whether the contracts are single or multiple. So, in your case, the contractor should have obtained a license. You as PE should not have allowed him to deploy the 20th worker without a license from the RLC. The only difference would be if the contractor was deploying people under different organizations - say in partnership with different individuals. However, in an investigation, it would not stand scrutiny. Either the PE will be penalized, or the workers made permanent, both of which you would like to avoid.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
As pointed out by Saswata, if you are the principal employer for 57 laborers deployed by the same contractor, though for three different works of the same principal employer, you are in trouble, and you should ensure that the contractor has a license.
Madhu.T.K: Contract Labour
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Madhu.T.K: Contract Labour
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear all,
If I had furnished false information, I would not have discussed it in the forum. I'm an old subscriber to this forum and have added various inputs to different queries for which I have received appreciation. Contributing members should be respected. Anyway, the issue is very real. I tried to clarify it through our senior HR bosses, but I received conflicting views. When the RLC of the Bilaspur region visited our area, I specifically asked him this question. His contention was that since PE is issuing Form-V for individual works separately for the purpose of licensing, the deployment of 57 contract laborers in three contracts absolves him of the responsibility of issuing Form-V due to less than 20 laborers in each contract. I tried to convince the RLC that in the CL Act, when a contract uses the word "employs," not "deploys." Contractors are naturally very happy with this ruling, and if I take any further action without legal or official confirmation, I would be considered a threat to the present system.
Now, what course should I follow to rectify this?
Thanks and regards
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If I had furnished false information, I would not have discussed it in the forum. I'm an old subscriber to this forum and have added various inputs to different queries for which I have received appreciation. Contributing members should be respected. Anyway, the issue is very real. I tried to clarify it through our senior HR bosses, but I received conflicting views. When the RLC of the Bilaspur region visited our area, I specifically asked him this question. His contention was that since PE is issuing Form-V for individual works separately for the purpose of licensing, the deployment of 57 contract laborers in three contracts absolves him of the responsibility of issuing Form-V due to less than 20 laborers in each contract. I tried to convince the RLC that in the CL Act, when a contract uses the word "employs," not "deploys." Contractors are naturally very happy with this ruling, and if I take any further action without legal or official confirmation, I would be considered a threat to the present system.
Now, what course should I follow to rectify this?
Thanks and regards
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It is true if you issue Form V to separate contractors, but you have issued three Form V to one contractor. What will you show in your Register of Contractors (a register required to be maintained wherein the names and addresses of all contractors will be listed)? You will be writing one name only. That means you have only one contractor who has deployed 57 workers in your establishment. This is what we have said is not as per the law.
Hope that your establishment has obtained Registration under the CLRA Act.
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hope that your establishment has obtained Registration under the CLRA Act.
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I agree with Madhu T K in the immediately preceding mail in the thread. You are the PE. In case of contravention, no one will look at the contractor because most probably, he will vanish into thin air. You will be held responsible for all his actions or lack of actions. You have also asked what other things you should be careful of. Before you pay his bills, ask him to provide the proof of payment of wages to his workers, ensure minimum wages are being paid to his workers, OT is being paid as per rules, proof of PF payment/returns, ESI payment/returns, and so on. If you pay him without verifying all these documents, you are in trouble with the labor officer of your area.
A S Bhat
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
A S Bhat
From India, Pune
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.