Umakanthan53
Labour Law & Hr Consultant
Bcarya
Assistant Manager - Hr
Sovik Bhattachaerjee
Md- S.s Enterprise
Trusha16
Hr Professional
Ashvini S
Hr Manager
+1 Other

Cite.Co is a repository of information and resources created by industry seniors and experts sharing their real world insights. Join Network
Dear Sir/Mam, I wanted to know, is there any difference between Confirmed Employee & Permanent Employee or whether it is Same... Thank you...
From India, Mumbai
Dear Ashvini,
Permanent employee is employee who is in probation in the company. These employees are mostly not entitled for any benefit such as paid leaves, mediclaim etc. in most of the companies. neither they are bound to give notice to the company nor company is bound to give notice before relieving the employee (Although few company keep 15 days notice in probation.
Temporary employees are entitled for all the benefit and also they have to serve notice of 1/2/3 months (differ company to company) before leaving and same applicable for employer.
Regards,
trusha

From India, Vadodara
Dear Ashvini,
The terms Permanent Employee & Confirmed Employee are same. They are awarded with all the facilities and benefits.
Whereas, the temporary employees are the employees who are on probation. They may also be provided some facilities, but not as confirmed employees.

From India, Delhi
Dear Trusha,
The term permanent employee has been confused with temporary employee. Permanent employees are entitled for all the benefits whereas Temporary employees are the ones who are in probation period.

From India, Bombay
Hi,

Want to add a small note:

Temporary Employee : Employees who are in Probation period ------(1) as well as employees who are hired by company for a short term of specified period, in order to meet immediate deficiency of manpower in a temporary basis------(2).

Statement 2 is correct because sometimes there may be a spike in work load/ deficiency of man power, under such circumstances companies hire sort term employees say for 1month/2months/3months to meet deficiency or spike in work load. This is true very much for blue collar employees.

Temporary employees may or may not be in direct payroll of employer.

Permanent Employees: Employees who has cleared probation period & entitled with facilities like CLs, EL, Mediclaims, for resignation a notice period or buyback of notice period is involved & most important tenure of service can up to be retirement age of employees unless exceptional situation arise during service period. Here, employee will be in always be in direct payroll of employer.

Confirmed Employee: It is a special case permanent employees. Here, employee may have been cleared probation period & become permanent employee of company (Direct Payroll of employees), whom we will call confirmed employee-------------(1). Again, employees in 3rd party payroll, can also become confirmed employees-----------(2)

Say, a company hire employees from 3rd party with a criteria, that employees will work for 1st party (employer) till a certain period of time, once the employee meet the time period/meet required competency or criteria, 1st party will take employee in their payroll. This strategy is often used by a company to reduce attrition rate & over all cost. Employees in 3rd party often get lower salary, facilities then confirmed/permanent employees of 1st party.

Regards

Sovik B

From India, Mumbai
Hi,

Sorry made a small error:

Confirmed Employee: It is a special case permanent employees. Here, employee may have been cleared probation period & become permanent employee of company (Direct Payroll of employer), whom we will call confirmed employee-------------(1). Again, employees in 3rd party payroll, can also become confirmed employees-----------(2)

Say, a company hire employees from 3rd party with a criteria, that employees will work for 1st party (employer) till a certain period of time, once the employee meet the time period/meet required competency or any other specified criteria(s), 1st party will take employee in their payroll. Post that such employees will become confirmed employees of 1st party (i.e employer). This strategy is often used by a company to reduce attrition rate & over all cost. Employees in 3rd party often get lower salary, facilities then confirmed/permanent employees of 1st party.

Regards

Sovik B

From India, Mumbai
IF we limit our attention to the focul point of the question, I think the answer will be very simple and clear.Confirmation is the process of declaring an employee's permanency to his/her post of employment after the successful completion of the period of probation.Therefore, confirmed employee is also a permanent employee.
From India, Salem
Hi,

Mr Umakathan,

You are 100% correct. I agree with you, sir what you said ' Confirmation is the process of declaring an employee's permanency to his/her post of employment after the successful completion of the period of probation.'

But I have one question, just for my personal sake of interest, I would be highly obliged if you clarify.

Say X (employer), hire employee (Y), who is in payroll of (Z). Means (Y) will perform task allocated to him/her by (X), but he is getting salary from (Z) as (X) pays directly to ( Z). Z is third party vendor of X.

Now, after completion of certain amount of time,( say 6months), X takes Y in their own payroll & provide a sum of money to Z. Thus Y become confirmed/permanent employee of X. In this whole story, Y learn basic work he needs to perform under X, gain competencies required, & stability of Y is also confirmed .

These sort of scenario we are seeing this days especially in ITES, IT & Telecom sector (especially maintenance and all division) .

My question to you is, can we call Y probationary employee, when he is in payroll of Z & not X? Y can be permanent employee of Z too, in case he don't qualify parameter & terms of service under X, Z can place him in their own work or to some other company's work say A(another employer)?

Does same laws & rules which is applicable for probationary employees will be applicable for Y?

In case of USA , classification is easy & they have made categories of such employment too. But in INDIA, if any complain is reported by Y, then as commissioner of labor, how you all will view the scene? means action will be taken against X or Z? Y can work in premises of X along with regular employees of X, only he don't get a salary from X directly. Y may have problem/ severe compliance allegation against X and not Z.

If you can clarify, it will help me a lot sir to understand the dilemma. If required, please use legal sections/labor laws whatever you feel required , so that I can understand how you all deal or view such problem on legal basis too. I had this question in my mind since a long time, but if you can clarify my doubts, I will always be grateful to you sir.

Regards

Sovik B

From India, Mumbai
Dear Sovik,

What the example you have cited is nothing but " leasing out of human resource " which has been in vouge in our country too since long. Of course the nomenclature of such employees differs with the type of the contract, the parties to the contract and the subject-matter of the contract.If engaged through a contractor, they are called "contract labour" and engaged for certain incidental works or special type of spade-works on a direct contract for fixed payment on assignment basis they are called "off-roll employees".The bonafides of this form of indirect labour, not to speak of the legal restrictions if any applicable, mostly depends on the business ethics of the employers.But in business, as you are aware, propriety is based on appropriateness and inappropriateness with reference to monetary commitments only.If the compliance by employers and enforcement by the States of all the provisions of the C.L.R.A Act1970 is are true to the letter and spirit of it, the incidence of indirect labour will only be in deserving cases alone.

In your example X and Z, as employers are separate entities.As long as Y the employee is engaged through Z, the real employer is Z though he works in the establishment of X and as such the later absorption of Y by X as his regular employee on his attainment of the job-competencies required cannot convert the earlier period of indirect employment as the period of probation for period of probation will commence only from the date of regular appointment.In the true sense of the term "probation", it is upto the discretion of X to relax it in the case of Y's regular appointment. In the opposite contingency, Z can shift Y out of X and lend his services to A. The question of "regularity of employment" is different from " permanency of employment". That's why in actual practice the entire stretch of the period during which the contractor say Z is unable to secure employment to Y befitting his competencies is called " bench period" with some minimal allowance to sustain himself as per their contract if there is such a specific clause.

Complaint if any by Y in the absence of such a clause regarding his non-employment could be preferred against Z only and not against X or both.

From India, Salem
Mr,

Umakathan,

Thank You for your time & answer. So, if we sum it up, & if I have understood you correctly, then we have to consider legally as long as Y is Z's employee, X does not posses legal authority to transfer any kind of its liabilities on Y's shoulder without Y's consent or Z's. Means, Y is not bound to follow X's policies/practice if it is not included in agreement/ offer letter/ appointment letter between Y's & Z's.

Q1 ) Therefore say, if X is a financial corporation & Y perform any kind of forgery, then X cant charge Y directly, except going via Z. Since Z is the third party vendor of X, so Z posses liability of X's financial success/security/losses & not Y directly (in terms of Laws)? If Y does not posses to take legal action against X (or both), same is true for X I belief?

Provided say , if X is not a registered institute/company in INDIA, don't perform any kind of business in India, free from intervention of RBI/SEBI or any other legal body of India, with HQ in some foreign nation & only connected to India via a third party vendor (MOU or Legal agreement is in between X & Z) & Z is registered both in India & that foreign nation of X.

Q 2) How, much legal authority Z posses to charge Y in India on behalf of complain of X in court of law?

Because based on what you have said, we are considering Y's employment with X & Z as two separate recruitment & legally employment is based on discretion & individual decision of X & Z separately.(Never simultaneously 2 at a same time).

Kindly answer these last 2 question sir. And once again thank you.

Regards

Sovik B

From India, Mumbai

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™