Rahul Kumar
Senior Hr Professional
RSUDHAKAR
Sr Manager - Hr
Jai1736
Labour Laws, H R Management

Cite.Co is a repository of information created by your industry peers and experienced seniors sharing their experience and insights.
Join Us and help by adding your inputs. Contributions From Other Members Follow Below...
Hi folks
I works for a construction company
We are employing employing Site Employees also (WIthout any Written letter from company side)
The site employees are equivalent to daily labours or CLs in nature
At the time of termination we are not paying any compensation under section 25 F or Section 25 G of ID act 1947
The procedure we are adopting is right or wrong
I am insisting on formal appointment letter to employees who keeps on working for more than 240 days and the management is not bothering about
Couple of cases , has gone to the court
I believe it is mantadory to provide appointment letter
To follow section 25 F and 25G at the time of termination , when the employee worked for morethan 240 days
Your views pls
Regards
R.Sudhakar

Hi Sudhakar,
Many organizations try and skip issuing appointment letters to casual/daily labour just to avoid showing them on-rolls and to avoid enrolment in statutory benefits. This is a small-Company mentality.
The basic thinking is minimise burden, to save money and dispense off with such labour any time at no/least cost.
If the number of such labour are less, one can think of tiding over the problem momentarily till a legal case arises. Alternately, if the numbers are large, the chances of legal cases cropping up are high and immediate.
However, the correct way is what you mentioned - to issue appointment letters and to pay off their dues to avoid litigation.
You may need to explain to the management the options and consequences of the action or approach. Rest is left to them to agree with wise counsel..
Rahul
09968270580

Construction employees can not claim permanency whether they work for more than 240 days or not . This has been upheld by various High Courts. However it will be legally correct to give them compensation as per provisions of ID Act.
This discussion thread is closed. If you want to continue this discussion or have a follow up question, please post it on the network.
Add the url of this thread if you want to cite this discussion.






About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service



All rights reserved @ 2020 Cite.Co™