An employee is working in an organization under a contractor. On one side, he demanded permanency with the principal employer, and on the other side, he is demanding a wage increment. Is he eligible to claim a wage increment (in addition to the minimum wages).
Thank you.
From India, Kumbakonam
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1257Thank you.
From India, Kumbakonam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In principle, an employee working under a contractor cannot raise a demand for permanency and wage increment, that too more than the minimum wages prescribed, with the principal employer. However, if the contractor is not a registered contractor, without a valid license under the Contract Labour Act, and the concerned employee has proof of evidence that he has been engaged in a permanent nature of job/process job continuously for more than two years with the principal employer, he can raise a claim for equal remuneration and an 'Individual dispute' before the Conciliation Officer.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I don't know if there is any provision of continuous working for two years for claiming equal remuneration. If the role and functional responsibilities that the contract worker holds are similar to other regular workers under the regular rolls of the principal employer, then the contract worker can demand equal pay even from day one of his engagement.
My understanding of demanding permanency is like this. If the contract is sham, the workers engaged through the contractor can demand regularization. It is immaterial whether the contractor has obtained a license prescribed under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act or not because the license is required only when he deploys 20 or more workers in a principal employer's place.
If the contract is genuine, no worker under the contractor can claim regularization with the principal employer. If the workers deployed are doing work of perennial nature for which regular workers could have been deployed, then the appropriate authority (labour department) can abolish it. In such an instance also there is no automatic regularization of those who lost jobs. The only thing is that whenever a vacancy comes, those who lost jobs subsequent to the abolition of the contract labor system can be given preference.
A contract worker can claim regularization once it is proved that the contract is sham. A sham contract is one which is just for namesake, and everything is decided by the principal employer, like the principal employer decides the wages of contract labor, he grants leaves to contract labor, he takes disciplinary action against the contract worker, supervises the contract labor, etc.
If the wages are fixed by the contract labor, naturally, the contract will become sham. In a genuine contract, the principal employer does not have any control over who is being deployed in his establishment. What matters is the number of employees and not by name. If the employee has claimed regularization, normally, the employer should ask the contractor to remove him and deploy some other person in his place. That has not happened in this case. Moreover, the worker is demanding a wage increase from the principal employer. In this situation, entertaining such demand itself proves that the contract is sham or camouflage.
If it is a genuine contract, the principal employer should not allow him to continue in his plant. Let him fight the case from outside. The employer should ask the contractor to deploy some other person in his place. It is to be communicated only to the contractor, and the contractor will keep that worker out. Then the question of wage increase will not arise at all. Let the labor department decide whether he should be regularized or not. If the decision is to regularize, then take him, give him wages equal to the grades as applicable at par with other workers.
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
My understanding of demanding permanency is like this. If the contract is sham, the workers engaged through the contractor can demand regularization. It is immaterial whether the contractor has obtained a license prescribed under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act or not because the license is required only when he deploys 20 or more workers in a principal employer's place.
If the contract is genuine, no worker under the contractor can claim regularization with the principal employer. If the workers deployed are doing work of perennial nature for which regular workers could have been deployed, then the appropriate authority (labour department) can abolish it. In such an instance also there is no automatic regularization of those who lost jobs. The only thing is that whenever a vacancy comes, those who lost jobs subsequent to the abolition of the contract labor system can be given preference.
A contract worker can claim regularization once it is proved that the contract is sham. A sham contract is one which is just for namesake, and everything is decided by the principal employer, like the principal employer decides the wages of contract labor, he grants leaves to contract labor, he takes disciplinary action against the contract worker, supervises the contract labor, etc.
If the wages are fixed by the contract labor, naturally, the contract will become sham. In a genuine contract, the principal employer does not have any control over who is being deployed in his establishment. What matters is the number of employees and not by name. If the employee has claimed regularization, normally, the employer should ask the contractor to remove him and deploy some other person in his place. That has not happened in this case. Moreover, the worker is demanding a wage increase from the principal employer. In this situation, entertaining such demand itself proves that the contract is sham or camouflage.
If it is a genuine contract, the principal employer should not allow him to continue in his plant. Let him fight the case from outside. The employer should ask the contractor to deploy some other person in his place. It is to be communicated only to the contractor, and the contractor will keep that worker out. Then the question of wage increase will not arise at all. Let the labor department decide whether he should be regularized or not. If the decision is to regularize, then take him, give him wages equal to the grades as applicable at par with other workers.
From India, Kannur
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.
Case studies on R & S.doc
Circular Dated 28-10-2016 for settlement of PF Death Case Claims within 7 days.pdf
PF Death case Composite Claim Form No 20,10D & 5IF.xls