Madhu.T.KNo. The Principal employer cannot evidence an interview of a contract labour. he can tell the contractor about the qualities and attributes that the worker should have but should not directly involve in the selection process nor can he fix the wages directly with the worker. Showing such direct involvement will beat the purpose of such engagement and the contract will then be considered as a camouflage arrangement.
From India, Kannur
email@example.comDear Ranjeet & Madhu
In HR language, many at times the jargons that we use do lead to confusion and contravention.
Answer your question, PE cant take the "interview" of CL for sure as its proving some relationship between PE and EE in the selection of CL which shouldn't be.
However, I would suggest you change the terminology as "assessment of the skills of CL", which would be possible by the PE before deploying into the work. The assessment can be done thru interaction, questionnaire or any other appropriate modes, but the presence of Contractor / Contract Supervisor during is must.
You may ask if any further clarifications on this.
From India, Mumbai
Madhu.T.KBasically contract labour (" Labour") is deployed in such work which are not core areas of the business. If so, we should employ permanent workers. Do you think that an employer should "assess the skill" of those who are engaged in housekeeping or gardening work?????
I think it is better you employ direct workers/ employees rather than depending upon contract workers for such activities by interaction, questionnaires etc.
It is true that many multi crore business houses are working in India which do not follow the labour rules and most of these companies engage contract labour without complying the CLRA Act. they are doing so not by ignorance but as a matter of their right on the faith that they will get the protection from the ruling political parties. But if something happens and the media interferes the top management will wash their hands just by saying that "we have an HR person whose major role is to ensure compliance and it is unfortunate that he has not done his job properly!". This is history of any dispute which has been exposed.
Therefore, don't think it as HR jargon but an HR truth.
From India, Kannur
sbirendra261Dear Sir Can you provide any document / act copy to prove the above mentioned fact in this post If it happen i will very grateful to all of you
From India, Patna
Madhu.T.KYou will get n number of interpretations on sham contract by various courts. If the contract between the Principal Employer and the Contractor is ruse or camouflage, it will be treated as a sham contract. In the following instances a contract shall become sham contract.
1 When Principal employer signs as party to a wage settlement between the Contractor and his workmen
2. When the Principal Employer has absolute control and supervision over of the work of contract workers
3. When the Principal Employer fixes the service conditions of contract workers and initiates disciplinary action against them as and when required.
4. When the Principal Employer ordinarily pays of salaries and allowances to contract workers otherwise than when the contractor fails to pay it time.
5. When the Principal Employer himself becomes the authority for granting leave to contract workers
If the contract is sham the Principal employer is liable to absorb the workers as permanent or regular workers.
From India, Kannur
nanu1953Now a days even contractual Engineer, officer , managers are taken by many organizations. In all these cases PE is taking interview and selecting the remuneration. PE is not liking to compromise with the quality of the candidate.
Though they are no labor but they are also contractual staff. Their remuneration varies from freshers 25k pm with other facilities - PF, Insurance, Bonus etc to maximum even more than 1 lakh pm.
The above is also not right process but it is happening. To me there is no clear cut solution to avoid the process. But what I feel less the involvement of PE - better the situation.
S K Bandyopadhyay ( WB, Howrah)
CEO-USD HR Solutions
+91 98310 81531
USD HR Solutions – To Strive towards excellence with effort and integrity
From India, New Delhi
Madhu.T.KContractual employment is different from employee engaged through a contractor. The employees on fixed term contract is certainly an employee of the organisation and in such cases the employer himself take a call on interview/ selection and fixing of salary. An employee under a fixed term contract is paid by the employer directly. But the principal employer should not select and fix salaries of employees engaged through a contractor/ under a third party roll. If that is done, the contract will become sham.
True, in the Corporate world a number of companies do engage contract labour even in core activities. The CLRA Act itself is not properly enforced even in Kerala which is considered to be the number one in respect of labour law enforcement. We should not forget the incidents which took place in Manesar plant of Maruti. It was the result of pathetic life of contract labours in the plant. The rights of contract workers should not be denied. Everyone knows that he cannot engage labours even though a contractor without paying him statutory wages, PF, ESI and giving them canteen and other facilities. Still the employers want a contractor be there between the employer and the employees. Why? Why should there be a contractor when the system will only add cost by way of service charges payable to the contractor?
From India, Kannur
Community Support on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.