Dear Sirs,
Please suggest,
In my company, 75 permanent workmen and 200 contract workmen are working. According to Section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act, if 100 or more workmen are employed in any establishment, a Works Committee must be formed.
Should we establish the committee even though we only have 75 regular workmen? Please provide guidance.
Thank you.
From India, Nizamabad
8Please suggest,
In my company, 75 permanent workmen and 200 contract workmen are working. According to Section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act, if 100 or more workmen are employed in any establishment, a Works Committee must be formed.
Should we establish the committee even though we only have 75 regular workmen? Please provide guidance.
Thank you.
From India, Nizamabad
A tricky situation indeed! Therefore, to find the most appropriate answer to the query finally raised in the post, we have to critically analyze the definitions of the terms "employer", "workman" u/s 2(g) and 2(s) of the I.D Act, 1947 respectively and "principal employer", "workman" u/s 2(g) and 2(i) with specific reference to the deeming provision thereof to "contract labor" u/s 2(b) of the CLRA Act, 1970 respectively juxtaposing the duty of works committee described u/s 3(2) of the I.D Act, 1947.
Coming to the definitions mentioned above - (1) the term "employer" u/s 2(g) of the I.D Act, 1947 as defined is neither exhaustive nor inclusive but just illustrative only. Besides, the term "employer" has not at all been defined in the CLRA Act, 1970 though the term "principal employer" has been defined in the same but more elaborate manner. Therefore, as held by the hon'ble Delhi High Court in Workmen of Swantara Bharat Mills Canteen v. Management [(1984) Lab.I.C 1235], the term "employer" has to be given its ordinary grammatical meaning only. Automatically the same analogy holds good in respect of the term "principal employer" too.
(2) The definition of the term "workman" u/s 2(s) of the ID Act, 1947 comprises of the heads viz., (a) Nature of Work (b) Terms of Employment (c) Persons included and (d) Persons Excluded. For the sake of brevity, let me skip the heads (a), (c) and (d) and focus on "(b) terms of employment" only. Simply put, the phrase "employed" used in the definition qualifies the terms of employment as a relationship of command and obedience or employer and employee which can be explicit or implied. If we carefully analyze the deeming provision explaining the term "contract labor" under the CLRA Act, 1970, it would be crystal clear that there is no contractual relationship between the contract labor and the principal employer. That's why in Workmen of Food Corporation of India v. FCI [1985 (II) LLJ 4 (SC)], the Supreme Court categorically held that when the contract system of work was in vogue in the Corporation, the workmen employed by the contractor were not the workmen of the Corporation.
Therefore, since the total number of regular workmen in the establishment remains less than 100, it need not constitute works committee u/s 3(1) though there are 200 contract labor.
Here, one should not get confused by the definition of the term "worker" u/s 2(l) of the Factories Act, 1948 or the vicarious liability enjoined upon the principal employer u/s 21 of the CLRA Act, 1970 because of the difference in the purposes.
From India, Salem
Coming to the definitions mentioned above - (1) the term "employer" u/s 2(g) of the I.D Act, 1947 as defined is neither exhaustive nor inclusive but just illustrative only. Besides, the term "employer" has not at all been defined in the CLRA Act, 1970 though the term "principal employer" has been defined in the same but more elaborate manner. Therefore, as held by the hon'ble Delhi High Court in Workmen of Swantara Bharat Mills Canteen v. Management [(1984) Lab.I.C 1235], the term "employer" has to be given its ordinary grammatical meaning only. Automatically the same analogy holds good in respect of the term "principal employer" too.
(2) The definition of the term "workman" u/s 2(s) of the ID Act, 1947 comprises of the heads viz., (a) Nature of Work (b) Terms of Employment (c) Persons included and (d) Persons Excluded. For the sake of brevity, let me skip the heads (a), (c) and (d) and focus on "(b) terms of employment" only. Simply put, the phrase "employed" used in the definition qualifies the terms of employment as a relationship of command and obedience or employer and employee which can be explicit or implied. If we carefully analyze the deeming provision explaining the term "contract labor" under the CLRA Act, 1970, it would be crystal clear that there is no contractual relationship between the contract labor and the principal employer. That's why in Workmen of Food Corporation of India v. FCI [1985 (II) LLJ 4 (SC)], the Supreme Court categorically held that when the contract system of work was in vogue in the Corporation, the workmen employed by the contractor were not the workmen of the Corporation.
Therefore, since the total number of regular workmen in the establishment remains less than 100, it need not constitute works committee u/s 3(1) though there are 200 contract labor.
Here, one should not get confused by the definition of the term "worker" u/s 2(l) of the Factories Act, 1948 or the vicarious liability enjoined upon the principal employer u/s 21 of the CLRA Act, 1970 because of the difference in the purposes.
From India, Salem
In continuation, I'd also like to add that in view of the absence of the relationship of Employer-Employee between the principal employer and the contract labor engaged by him, for applying the restrictions imposed by the ID Act, 1947 in chapter V-B on service conditions like lay-off, retrenchment, closure, etc. with reference to the number of workmen in the establishment, the number of contract labor is not taken into account.
From India, Salem
From India, Salem
Your establishment has a total workforce of 275, out of which 75 are in company roles, and the rest are contractors. According to the definition, when the strength reaches 100, regardless of their category, a works committee needs to be formed including all workmen.
The Industrial Disputes (ID) Act came into force well before the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act (CL(R&A) Act. Therefore, the 100 strength requirement pertains to regular employees whose names are listed in the company muster roll. The opinion presented is a logical conclusion due to the lack of clarity in the definition. Our legal system has the peculiarity of interpreting all relevant acts in force.
Is there any specific stipulation from the labor department regarding the formation of a works committee? You can skip until the question is asked. It may be beneficial to observe other organizations of a similar nature around you for reference. Hence, our senior colleague, Mr. Umakanthan, referred to it as "tricky."
From India, Mumbai
The Industrial Disputes (ID) Act came into force well before the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act (CL(R&A) Act. Therefore, the 100 strength requirement pertains to regular employees whose names are listed in the company muster roll. The opinion presented is a logical conclusion due to the lack of clarity in the definition. Our legal system has the peculiarity of interpreting all relevant acts in force.
Is there any specific stipulation from the labor department regarding the formation of a works committee? You can skip until the question is asked. It may be beneficial to observe other organizations of a similar nature around you for reference. Hence, our senior colleague, Mr. Umakanthan, referred to it as "tricky."
From India, Mumbai
Dear Friends,
I beg to differ regarding the definition of workmen given in Section 2(s) of the ID Act. The definition does not distinguish between categories of workmen such as permanent, casual, badli, temporary, or contract workmen. It simply uses the term "workmen."
As far as I understand, the workmen employed in the factory have to be seen in totality and not classified separately.
Mr. Umakanthan,
Sir, your opinion is requested to be elaborated as it holds significance.
Warm Regards,
Bharat Gera
HR Consultant
9322404765
From India, Thane
I beg to differ regarding the definition of workmen given in Section 2(s) of the ID Act. The definition does not distinguish between categories of workmen such as permanent, casual, badli, temporary, or contract workmen. It simply uses the term "workmen."
As far as I understand, the workmen employed in the factory have to be seen in totality and not classified separately.
Mr. Umakanthan,
Sir, your opinion is requested to be elaborated as it holds significance.
Warm Regards,
Bharat Gera
HR Consultant
9322404765
From India, Thane
Dear Sirs,
Special gratitude to Umakanth Sir. I am one of the followers of you, sir. Thanking you for your reply. We need some clarification about Sec 3:
In the case of any industrial establishment in which one hundred or more workmen are employed or have been employed on any day in the preceding twelve months, why mention this: the appropriate Government may, by general or special order, require the employer to constitute, in the prescribed manner, a Works Committee consisting of representatives of employers and workmen engaged in the establishment. However, the number of representatives of workmen on the Committee shall not be less than the number of representatives of the employer.
Even with 100 or more workmen, is it optional to constitute the works committee or statutory? Is there any relaxation not to form the works committee? Kindly guide me, sir.
From India, Nizamabad
Special gratitude to Umakanth Sir. I am one of the followers of you, sir. Thanking you for your reply. We need some clarification about Sec 3:
In the case of any industrial establishment in which one hundred or more workmen are employed or have been employed on any day in the preceding twelve months, why mention this: the appropriate Government may, by general or special order, require the employer to constitute, in the prescribed manner, a Works Committee consisting of representatives of employers and workmen engaged in the establishment. However, the number of representatives of workmen on the Committee shall not be less than the number of representatives of the employer.
Even with 100 or more workmen, is it optional to constitute the works committee or statutory? Is there any relaxation not to form the works committee? Kindly guide me, sir.
From India, Nizamabad
Dear Mr. Bharath,
I would request you kindly to read again my two successive replies above. Even one cannot find any contradiction between the definitions of "workman" under the ID Act, 1947, and the CLRA Act, 1970. By the defining aspects of both the definitions, I totally concur with you that there is commonality between a workman u/s 2(s) of the ID Act and u/s 2(i) of the CLRA Act as long as their contract of employment subsists with the employer as defined u/s 2(g) of the ID Act and with the contractor as defined u/s 2(c) of the CLRA Act respectively.
But when the provision of section 2(b) of the CLRA Act, 1970 comes into play, by virtue of the contract for service between the employer of the ID Act and the contractor of the CLRA Act, the former becomes the principal employer and the latter's workmen become only contract labor to the former. Thus, there is no contract of employment between them, and that's why the PE is not empowered to take any disciplinary action against the C.L for any work-related lapses. The principle of totality of perception on the basis of the similarity of the definitions of the term "workman" would apply only in matters involving vicarious liability on the part of the PE.
Regarding the query of the friend from Nizamabad, there is no choice if any for the employer having 100 or more workmen if there is an order passed by the appropriate Govt by a general or special order to constitute a works committee in the establishment.
From India, Salem
I would request you kindly to read again my two successive replies above. Even one cannot find any contradiction between the definitions of "workman" under the ID Act, 1947, and the CLRA Act, 1970. By the defining aspects of both the definitions, I totally concur with you that there is commonality between a workman u/s 2(s) of the ID Act and u/s 2(i) of the CLRA Act as long as their contract of employment subsists with the employer as defined u/s 2(g) of the ID Act and with the contractor as defined u/s 2(c) of the CLRA Act respectively.
But when the provision of section 2(b) of the CLRA Act, 1970 comes into play, by virtue of the contract for service between the employer of the ID Act and the contractor of the CLRA Act, the former becomes the principal employer and the latter's workmen become only contract labor to the former. Thus, there is no contract of employment between them, and that's why the PE is not empowered to take any disciplinary action against the C.L for any work-related lapses. The principle of totality of perception on the basis of the similarity of the definitions of the term "workman" would apply only in matters involving vicarious liability on the part of the PE.
Regarding the query of the friend from Nizamabad, there is no choice if any for the employer having 100 or more workmen if there is an order passed by the appropriate Govt by a general or special order to constitute a works committee in the establishment.
From India, Salem
"Order passed by the appropriate government by a general or special order" - Does this mean the government/government organization (Labour Department) will be giving individual orders/notices/letters, etc., to individual establishments/industries that your establishment should form a works committee?
From India
From India
The requirement of the formation of a works committee under Section 3 of the ID Act, 1947 does not become automatic when the numerical strength of the workmen employed in the industrial establishment reaches 100 or more. It should be an industrial establishment as defined under Section 2(ka), and the 100 workmen should be 'workmen' as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act. Besides, there should be an order issued by the appropriate Government, which is not obligated to pass such an order by the plain language employed in Section 3(1) of the Act.
Therefore, the order issued by the appropriate Government may be a general order applicable to all such industrial establishments in the State or a special one requiring a particular industrial establishment to form a works committee. Since the works committee is designated as an authority in the matter of the investigation of industrial disputes under Chapter II of the ID Act, 1947, and the appropriate Government has been empowered to make its own rules pertaining to the constitution, functioning, etc., of works committee under Section 38(2)(b), it is sufficient that there can be a general order in this regard, and I also suppose that is the normal practice. The poster may check with the rules of his State as well as the notifications issued by the State.
From India, Salem
Therefore, the order issued by the appropriate Government may be a general order applicable to all such industrial establishments in the State or a special one requiring a particular industrial establishment to form a works committee. Since the works committee is designated as an authority in the matter of the investigation of industrial disputes under Chapter II of the ID Act, 1947, and the appropriate Government has been empowered to make its own rules pertaining to the constitution, functioning, etc., of works committee under Section 38(2)(b), it is sufficient that there can be a general order in this regard, and I also suppose that is the normal practice. The poster may check with the rules of his State as well as the notifications issued by the State.
From India, Salem
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.