Industrial Relations And Labour Laws
Partner - Risk Management
Sr.executive (per & Adm)
Asso.prof.(commerce & Management) Pg
Deputy General Manager
Now if he does not want to be a contractor, he can terminate the contract with you. After that you can issue form VI to his relatives so that he can take a fresh licence in his name and continue working with the same employees. These are the possible ways by which he can get way from the legal formalities. But I would say that, as a principal employer, you should not encourage it. Keeping the employees unchanged under various contractors would be viewed as an attempt to defray the legal rights of workers and the contract will be treated just as a camouflage or wind screen and thus a sham contract. Once it is established that the contract is sham or is executed for name sake only, you will be in trouble and may even lead to regularisation of service of contract workers. Taking legal opinion on behalf of the contractor itself is an evidence to show that your contract with the contractor is sham. Therefore, get out of it, if your firm believes in genuineness.
12th December 2015 From India, Kannur
12th December 2015 From India, Mumbai
In our establishment, we outsource intermittent jobs to contractors. Sometimes it happens that one contractor succeeds in getting multiple jobs (say three) in competitive bidding process. He deploys 19 labours in each contract resulting in deployment of 57 labours in a particular day. He doesn't have the license. We talked to Regional Labour Commissioner and he told us that since he is deploying 19 labours in one contract, he doesn't need any license. The CL Act says about the employment of contract labours not deployment. Your esteemed opinion will be solicited by me. Moreover what precautions should a PE take when one contract Labour changes his contractor in the same establishment.
13th December 2015 From India, Pune
13th December 2015 From India, Bangalore
Else I don't understand how the RLC can give such a reply.
If a contractor has more than 19 workers at one site, he needs a license. It does not matter what each of them are doing or whether the contracts are single or multiple. So, in your case, the contractor should have obtained a license. You as PE should have not allowed him to deploy the 20th worker with license from the RLC.
The only difference would be if the contractor was deploying people under different organisations - say in partnership with different people. However, in an investigation it would not stand scrutiny. Either the PE Will be penalised or the workers made permanent, both of which you would like to avoid.
14th December 2015 From India, Mumbai
Madhu.T.K: Contract Labour
14th December 2015 From India, Kannur
If I had furnished false information ,I would not have discussed it in the forum. I'm an old subscriber to this forum and added various inputs to different quries for which I got appreciation also. Contributing members should be respected. Any way the issue is very real. I tried to get it clear through our senior HR bosses but I got conflicting views. When RLC of Bilaspur region came for visit at our area, I specially asked him this question. His contention was, since PE is issuing form-V for individual works seperately for the purpose of license, deployment of 57 contract labours in three contracts absolve him with the responsibility of issuing form-V due to less than 20 labours in each contract. I tried to convince RLC that in CL Act, when a contract "employs" word is mentioned not "deploys". Contractors are naturally very happy with this ruling and if I do anything further without any legal or official confirmation, I would be considered as a throne in present system.
Now what course should I follow to rectify this.
Thanks and regards
15th December 2015 From India, Pune
Hope that your establishment has obtained Registration under the CLRA Act.
15th December 2015 From India, Kannur
A S Bhat
16th December 2015 From India, Pune
In each of the firm V yiu have stated that the contractor has only 19 workers deployed in your factory.
That is definitely falsification of records and in effect a fraudulent activity.
A complain by any worker will being the entire government machinery on yiu like a ton of bricks. Your RLC would not have given you the ruling in writing
17th December 2015 From India, Mumbai
Our friend Mr.Madhu has gien his opinion elaborately in this subject thread. Thanks for him.
Labour Laws Consultant
17th December 2015 From India, Bidar
17th December 2015 From India, Pune
It very clearly says that the act applies to all contractors who have 20 or more contract workers. There is no stretch of imagination by which it can be said that it will only apply to each different activity in the same factory.
20th December 2015 From India, Mumbai
Labour Laws Consultant .
21st December 2015 From India, Bidar
21st December 2015 From India, Mumbai