We are (Contractor) one of our employee did a labour case against us regarding "Non payment of wages and termination from job" but we have paid his salary, he worked with us from 15 Nov 17 to 18 June 18, he didn't completed 240 days of working with our organization, now we want to know what we can do legally, need advise.
From India, Delhi
From India, Delhi
Firstly clarify few things.
Was he given any appointment letter,pay slip,identity card by the Contractor?
Why did the contractor remove him? Did he issue a termination letter?
And why are you are worried about 240 day clause for a contract worker and the legal clauses/implications.
From India, Hyderabad
199Was he given any appointment letter,pay slip,identity card by the Contractor?
Why did the contractor remove him? Did he issue a termination letter?
And why are you are worried about 240 day clause for a contract worker and the legal clauses/implications.
From India, Hyderabad
Mr. Venkata Vamsi Krishna Patnaik , they only provide ID Card, they didn't remove or terminate that employee, employee willingly go to his home town without any leave application or intimation but after that contractor didn't send any warning letter or any type of communication, now employee is saying contractor remove him without any notice.
I want to know about 240 day clause...
From India, Delhi
I want to know about 240 day clause...
From India, Delhi
Dear Ashish,
Better you go through section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 and section 2A of the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 both of which is almost similar to each other in defining the concept of continuous service. To put it simple, in order to determine whether a workman/employee has rendered continuous service under the same employer/establishment within a period of 12 consecutive calendar months, it is to be confirmed whether he has worked for a minimum of 240 days. These 240 days include not only the actual no of days he worked but also the days of interruptions due to holidays, authorised leave, lay off, lock out, strike which is not illegal, absence due to temporary disablement.
From India, Salem
Better you go through section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 and section 2A of the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 both of which is almost similar to each other in defining the concept of continuous service. To put it simple, in order to determine whether a workman/employee has rendered continuous service under the same employer/establishment within a period of 12 consecutive calendar months, it is to be confirmed whether he has worked for a minimum of 240 days. These 240 days include not only the actual no of days he worked but also the days of interruptions due to holidays, authorised leave, lay off, lock out, strike which is not illegal, absence due to temporary disablement.
From India, Salem
Dear Ashish / Patnaik & Respected Umakanthan Sir,
For academic interest I share computation of 240 days working
For computation of 240 days working in the 12 calendar months mean beginning from any day of any month of a year and ending in the next year.
Unpaid Sundays and Holidays cannot be taken for calculating actual working days of a workman. For reckoning of continuous service of 240 days in 12 months, it is to be moved backward from the date of termination.
240 days continuous service, if not rebutted will be deemed to be correct, No relief will be granted if the workman has worked for 239 days. Even daily wagers having worked for more than 240 days are entitled to job security under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Regards,
From India, Andheri
For academic interest I share computation of 240 days working
For computation of 240 days working in the 12 calendar months mean beginning from any day of any month of a year and ending in the next year.
Unpaid Sundays and Holidays cannot be taken for calculating actual working days of a workman. For reckoning of continuous service of 240 days in 12 months, it is to be moved backward from the date of termination.
240 days continuous service, if not rebutted will be deemed to be correct, No relief will be granted if the workman has worked for 239 days. Even daily wagers having worked for more than 240 days are entitled to job security under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Regards,
From India, Andheri
My dear friend from Andheri,
Every part of your answer is quite okay but for the one that excludes the unpaid Sundays and holidays from the calculation of continuous service u/s 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Perhaps, knowingly or unknowingly, the cue for such a narrow interpretation might have been from the judgment of the Madras High Court in A. Parthasarathi v. Management of Standard Motors Products of India Ltd (1979 Lab I. C 136) which held that the meaning of the words " actually worked" cannot be enlarged beyond what is contained in the Explanation to clause (2) of Section 25-B. On the contrary, the Supreme Court in Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation v. A.E.I.B.Corporation ( 1985-II-LLJ-539) held that the expression "actually worked under the employer" cannot mean those days only when the workman works with hammer and sickle or pen, but necessarily comprehend all those days during which he was in the employment of the employer and accordingly the S.C ruled that Sundays and other holidays would be comprehended in the words " actually worked". The Court also further observed that the Explanation is only clarificatory, as all Explanations are, and cannot be used to limit the expanse of the main provision.
From India, Salem
Every part of your answer is quite okay but for the one that excludes the unpaid Sundays and holidays from the calculation of continuous service u/s 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Perhaps, knowingly or unknowingly, the cue for such a narrow interpretation might have been from the judgment of the Madras High Court in A. Parthasarathi v. Management of Standard Motors Products of India Ltd (1979 Lab I. C 136) which held that the meaning of the words " actually worked" cannot be enlarged beyond what is contained in the Explanation to clause (2) of Section 25-B. On the contrary, the Supreme Court in Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation v. A.E.I.B.Corporation ( 1985-II-LLJ-539) held that the expression "actually worked under the employer" cannot mean those days only when the workman works with hammer and sickle or pen, but necessarily comprehend all those days during which he was in the employment of the employer and accordingly the S.C ruled that Sundays and other holidays would be comprehended in the words " actually worked". The Court also further observed that the Explanation is only clarificatory, as all Explanations are, and cannot be used to limit the expanse of the main provision.
From India, Salem
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.
CASE LAW DIGEST ON LABOUR LAWS 1997-2007.pdf
Benefits in death case as per labour acts.doc