Is the break necessary for the employee who are working on the contract in bank. If yes how many days? Seniors please advice.
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Vrushali,
Outsourced and regular employees are to be treated on par with each other. As far as statutory provisions are concerned, both are on equal footing. No discrimination is allowed.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
8031Outsourced and regular employees are to be treated on par with each other. As far as statutory provisions are concerned, both are on equal footing. No discrimination is allowed.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Vrushali,
Normally, the requirement of engaging employees on a direct contract basis would arise only to fill the vacancy if caused by the sudden exit or a substantially long leave by a regular employee during which the post cannot be filled by another regular employee or in the case of some ad-hoc, special, or incidental nature of work to be accomplished within a particular time duration. Therefore, there is no necessity for granting any break artificially.
The services of clerks and sub-staff are quite essential and thus inevitable for the core activities of a bank. If you fill such vacancies with direct contract labor or outsourced indirect labor indefinitely, such contracts certainly become sham. Only then do you rack up your brains to grant some periodical breaks so as to defeat any claim for regularization later.
As these cadres of employees fall under the category of "workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, such an attempt by the bank would amount to unfair labor practice under the Act. Besides, how long could such a preemptive break be at the maximum in a period of 12 calendar months? Once such a direct contract employee completes 240 days of service in the preceding 12 months, which includes holidays, authorized leave, any period of non-employment not due to the fault of the concerned employee, he is deemed to have completed continuous service as per Section 25-B of the IDA, 1947, and entitled to all the benefits on par with the regular employees doing the same or similar work.
Therefore, try to be fair with the contract, the employee, and the law of the land.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Normally, the requirement of engaging employees on a direct contract basis would arise only to fill the vacancy if caused by the sudden exit or a substantially long leave by a regular employee during which the post cannot be filled by another regular employee or in the case of some ad-hoc, special, or incidental nature of work to be accomplished within a particular time duration. Therefore, there is no necessity for granting any break artificially.
The services of clerks and sub-staff are quite essential and thus inevitable for the core activities of a bank. If you fill such vacancies with direct contract labor or outsourced indirect labor indefinitely, such contracts certainly become sham. Only then do you rack up your brains to grant some periodical breaks so as to defeat any claim for regularization later.
As these cadres of employees fall under the category of "workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, such an attempt by the bank would amount to unfair labor practice under the Act. Besides, how long could such a preemptive break be at the maximum in a period of 12 calendar months? Once such a direct contract employee completes 240 days of service in the preceding 12 months, which includes holidays, authorized leave, any period of non-employment not due to the fault of the concerned employee, he is deemed to have completed continuous service as per Section 25-B of the IDA, 1947, and entitled to all the benefits on par with the regular employees doing the same or similar work.
Therefore, try to be fair with the contract, the employee, and the law of the land.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Ya When norms of removal all applies equally to contract labour also. Projection of errors reasons of removal all should be satisfied by the principles of natural justice.
From India, Nellore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Nellore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Giving an artificial break is widely practiced in the government sector for the ostensible purpose of avoiding regularization. In industries, there is also a notion of giving an artificial break for a few days on the mistaken belief that continuous service of 240 days or more would grant the employee regular status. However, the provision of the law stipulates that it is 240 days of service in any continuous period of 12 months. Therefore, an artificial break of a few days here and there won't matter as long as it completes 240 days. The idea of an artificial break has lost its relevance as the termination of service following a stipulation in the employment contract does not fall under the category of 'retrenchment' as per the amended ID Act 1947 {Section 2(00)(bb)}. Thus, in cases where the staff is appointed for a fixed period and is relieved on the last date, they can be given a contract appointment from the next date.
However, such short-term appointments for a regular nature of employment are considered a despicable practice.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
However, such short-term appointments for a regular nature of employment are considered a despicable practice.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)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.