The applicability of ESI to construction workers in addition to the conflicting enactments already applicable to the construction industry.
The recent amendment and the application of ESI provisions to construction site workers with effect from 1 August 2015 are totally contradictory to the existing social security/welfare measures enacted by the Central Government. It appears to be a ploy to generate revenue due to the following reasons:
The ESI provides coverage to the Organized Sector only.
Building and construction workers are considered to be workers in the informal and unorganized sector. The facilities provided under the provisions of the ESI Act, 1948 cannot cover them due to:
(i) workers engaged in agriculture and allied activities, household industry, building and construction, small factories/establishments, home workers, domestic servants, artisans, self-employed persons such as fishermen, hawkers, auto-rickshaw drivers, etc., all constitute the informal or unorganized sector.
(ii) The main characteristics of workers in the unorganized sector are acute incidence of underemployment.
(iii) The scattered nature of workplaces.
(iv) High incidence of home-based work.
(v) Low collective bargaining power.
(vi) The absence of an employer-employee relationship.
Construction site workers are covered under various other enactments like The Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, The Interstate Migrant Workmen Act, 1979, and the Building and Other Construction Workers Act, 1996. They are provided benefits such as medical facilities and compensations. These enactments are particularly designed to provide health, safety, welfare, and social security measures for construction workers.
The ESI Corporation has not disclosed how they will provide benefits through their limited hospitals, dispensaries, and other infrastructures to construction workers under the provisions of the ESI Act who work in remote areas or miles away from the ESI setup.
The Mumbai High Court, in one of its judgments, has ordered that employees of the establishment of construction companies can be covered under the provisions of ESI; however, construction site workers cannot be covered under the provisions of ESI. It is noteworthy that this judgment has not been challenged by ESI in the Supreme Court.
The Building and Other Construction Workers Act, 1996, is particularly made for building and other construction workers who were deprived of safety, health, and social security welfare measures due to the nature of their work, acute unemployment, and low bargaining power. In addition to other welfare and social security enactments, the ESI Act will be a burden on the employer of a construction worker compared to the welfare and social security enactments applicable to the organized sector.
I request the forum to provide clarity for better implementation of the provisions of ESI.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
3The recent amendment and the application of ESI provisions to construction site workers with effect from 1 August 2015 are totally contradictory to the existing social security/welfare measures enacted by the Central Government. It appears to be a ploy to generate revenue due to the following reasons:
The ESI provides coverage to the Organized Sector only.
Building and construction workers are considered to be workers in the informal and unorganized sector. The facilities provided under the provisions of the ESI Act, 1948 cannot cover them due to:
(i) workers engaged in agriculture and allied activities, household industry, building and construction, small factories/establishments, home workers, domestic servants, artisans, self-employed persons such as fishermen, hawkers, auto-rickshaw drivers, etc., all constitute the informal or unorganized sector.
(ii) The main characteristics of workers in the unorganized sector are acute incidence of underemployment.
(iii) The scattered nature of workplaces.
(iv) High incidence of home-based work.
(v) Low collective bargaining power.
(vi) The absence of an employer-employee relationship.
Construction site workers are covered under various other enactments like The Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, The Interstate Migrant Workmen Act, 1979, and the Building and Other Construction Workers Act, 1996. They are provided benefits such as medical facilities and compensations. These enactments are particularly designed to provide health, safety, welfare, and social security measures for construction workers.
The ESI Corporation has not disclosed how they will provide benefits through their limited hospitals, dispensaries, and other infrastructures to construction workers under the provisions of the ESI Act who work in remote areas or miles away from the ESI setup.
The Mumbai High Court, in one of its judgments, has ordered that employees of the establishment of construction companies can be covered under the provisions of ESI; however, construction site workers cannot be covered under the provisions of ESI. It is noteworthy that this judgment has not been challenged by ESI in the Supreme Court.
The Building and Other Construction Workers Act, 1996, is particularly made for building and other construction workers who were deprived of safety, health, and social security welfare measures due to the nature of their work, acute unemployment, and low bargaining power. In addition to other welfare and social security enactments, the ESI Act will be a burden on the employer of a construction worker compared to the welfare and social security enactments applicable to the organized sector.
I request the forum to provide clarity for better implementation of the provisions of ESI.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Basics of the employment theme should be understood before compliance. If a worker or group is employed for half a day or a day for a certain repair job, mason job, or construction job (and paid at the end of the day or upon finishing work, whichever comes earlier), which is not the primary activity of the organization, then those workers are not paid a "salary" but are paid charges for the work.
However, if the worker(s) are deployed on a regular basis and work for a certain period, being paid at specific intervals, either weekly or monthly, then employer-employee relations are automatically established. It is irrelevant whether the person(s) are employed directly or through a contractor, but compliance should be ensured by the contractor or principal.
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
However, if the worker(s) are deployed on a regular basis and work for a certain period, being paid at specific intervals, either weekly or monthly, then employer-employee relations are automatically established. It is irrelevant whether the person(s) are employed directly or through a contractor, but compliance should be ensured by the contractor or principal.
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.
EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT - IMP- PROVISIONS IN TELUGU VERSION.pdf
New profession Tax Rates after Mahrashtra Government Budget & Provisions.doc