Dear Amit,
We are a pvt. ltd company located in Maharashtra where the shares held in the company allow the shareholders to the right to occupy the apartments owned by the company. We have been employing watchmen to provide security to our premises.
What are our legal obligations as far as terms and conditions of work are concerned and what labour statute would these come under? Would the Maharashtra Private Security Guards Act 1981 be applicable. I ask this as the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 1 the Act states that it does not apply to security guard directly employed by the principal employer. Can we be deemed to be the principal employer as we have never issued appointment letters to the guards and have treated them as daily wagers.
I would be grateful if you could provide some clarity as to what are our legal obligations and liability in such circumstances.
With thanks in advance for any guidance,
Regards,
The Woods
From India, Pune
1We are a pvt. ltd company located in Maharashtra where the shares held in the company allow the shareholders to the right to occupy the apartments owned by the company. We have been employing watchmen to provide security to our premises.
What are our legal obligations as far as terms and conditions of work are concerned and what labour statute would these come under? Would the Maharashtra Private Security Guards Act 1981 be applicable. I ask this as the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 1 the Act states that it does not apply to security guard directly employed by the principal employer. Can we be deemed to be the principal employer as we have never issued appointment letters to the guards and have treated them as daily wagers.
I would be grateful if you could provide some clarity as to what are our legal obligations and liability in such circumstances.
With thanks in advance for any guidance,
Regards,
The Woods
From India, Pune
The definition clause of the term "security guard" u/s 2(10) of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare ) Act,1981specifically excludes the members of the Principal Employer's family or any person who is the direct employee of the Principal Employer. Therefore, the watchmen employed directly by the Private Limited Company to provide security to the apartments owned by it are certainly out of the purview of the Maharashtra Act,1981 as rightly inferred by the Poster.
Since the apartments are owned by the Company and the watchmen are engaged for the purpose of security of the apartments they become the employees of the Company not withstanding the absence of proper appointing orders or the mode of the payments for the services rendered therewith. So, they have to be treated as the Company's employees only and as such they have to be extended all benefits available to other employees of the Company.
From India, Salem
Since the apartments are owned by the Company and the watchmen are engaged for the purpose of security of the apartments they become the employees of the Company not withstanding the absence of proper appointing orders or the mode of the payments for the services rendered therewith. So, they have to be treated as the Company's employees only and as such they have to be extended all benefits available to other employees of the Company.
From India, Salem
Thank you for the clarification and confirmation. In view of the fact that these watchmen directly employed by the company are its employees, I assume that the statute for payment would be the Minimum Wages Act and that the company is legally bound to pay wages as specified for this category under the notifications issued from time to time by the competent authorities.
From India, Pune
From India, Pune
Dear The Woods,
Your post does not give clear picture to me. It would have been better if deployed security personnel could be through proper mechanism . I mean to say here that if your company has not hired any Security Agency (Licensed Contractor) as a service provider engagement of personnel by " company" of "guards" then all such personnel or any such direct engagement even in absence of any Appointment Letter, they all shall be treated as employees of company, entitled to all benefits applicable to other employees.Further I suggest, to switch over to contract management System very strategically or other such services suitably in order to avoid permanent liabilities if the situation as perceived is correct.
Regds,
RDS Yadav
Labour Law Adviser
.
From India, Delhi
Your post does not give clear picture to me. It would have been better if deployed security personnel could be through proper mechanism . I mean to say here that if your company has not hired any Security Agency (Licensed Contractor) as a service provider engagement of personnel by " company" of "guards" then all such personnel or any such direct engagement even in absence of any Appointment Letter, they all shall be treated as employees of company, entitled to all benefits applicable to other employees.Further I suggest, to switch over to contract management System very strategically or other such services suitably in order to avoid permanent liabilities if the situation as perceived is correct.
Regds,
RDS Yadav
Labour Law Adviser
.
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.
Contract employee & Principal employer 2017.pdf
NOTE ON PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER TO ENGAGE CONTRACT LABOUR.pptx