An employee is working in an organization under a Contractor.
One side he demanded Permanency with Principal Employer and another side he is demanding for Wage Increment.
Is he eligible to claim Wage increment (in addition to the Minimum Wages).
From India, Kumbakonam
1166One side he demanded Permanency with Principal Employer and another side he is demanding for Wage Increment.
Is he eligible to claim Wage increment (in addition to the Minimum Wages).
From India, Kumbakonam
In principle, an employee working under a Contractor, can not raise a demand for permanency and wage increment, that too more than the minimum wages prescribed, with the Principe Employer.
However if the Contractor is not a registered contractor, with out a valid license under Contract Labour Act. and the concerned employee has proof of evidence, that he has been engaged in permanent nature of job / process job, and continuously for more than two years, with the Principle Employer, he can raise a claim for equal remuneration, and an 'Individual dispute' before the Conciliation Officer.
From India, Madras
However if the Contractor is not a registered contractor, with out a valid license under Contract Labour Act. and the concerned employee has proof of evidence, that he has been engaged in permanent nature of job / process job, and continuously for more than two years, with the Principle Employer, he can raise a claim for equal remuneration, and an 'Individual dispute' before the Conciliation Officer.
From India, Madras
I don't know if there is any provision of continuous working for two years for claiming equal remuneration. If the role and functional responsibilities that the contract worker holds is similar to other regular workers under the regular rolls of principal employer, then the contract worker can demand equal pay even from the day one of his engagement.
My understanding of demanding permanency is like this. If the contract is sham, the workers engaged through the contractor can demand regularisation. It is immaterial whether the contractor has obtained licence prescribed under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act or not because the licence is required only when he deploys 20 or more workers in a principal employer's place.
If the contract is genuine, no worker under the contractor can claim regularisation with principal employer.
If the workers deployed are doing work of perennial nature for which regular workers could have been deployed, then the appropriate authority (labour department) can abolish it. In such instance also there is no automatic regularisation of those who lost job. Only thing is that whenever vacancy comes, those who lost job subsequent to abolition of contract labour system can be given preference.
A contract worker can claim regularisation once it is proved that the contract is sham. A sham contract is one which is just for name sake and everything is decided by the principal employer, like, principal employer decides the wages of contract labour, he grants leaves to contract labour, he takes disciplinary action against the contract worker, supervises the contract labour etc.
If the wages is fixed by he contract labour, naturally, the contract will become sham. In a genuine contract, the principal employer does not have any control over who is being deployed in his establishment. What matters is the number of employees and not by name. If the employee has claimed regularisation, normally, the employer should ask the contractor to remove him and deploy some other person in his place. That has not happened in this case. Moreover, the worker is demanding wage increase from the principal employer. In this situation entertaining such demand itself proves that contract is sham or camouflage.
If it is a genuine contract, the principal employer should not allow him to continue in his plant. Let him fight the case from outside. The employer should ask the contractor to deploy some other person in his place. It is to be communicated only to the contractor and the contractor will keep that worker out. Then the question of wage increase will not arise at all. Let the labour department decide whether he should be regularised or not. If the decision is to regularise, then take him, give him wages equal to the grades as applicable at par with other workers.
From India, Kannur
My understanding of demanding permanency is like this. If the contract is sham, the workers engaged through the contractor can demand regularisation. It is immaterial whether the contractor has obtained licence prescribed under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act or not because the licence is required only when he deploys 20 or more workers in a principal employer's place.
If the contract is genuine, no worker under the contractor can claim regularisation with principal employer.
If the workers deployed are doing work of perennial nature for which regular workers could have been deployed, then the appropriate authority (labour department) can abolish it. In such instance also there is no automatic regularisation of those who lost job. Only thing is that whenever vacancy comes, those who lost job subsequent to abolition of contract labour system can be given preference.
A contract worker can claim regularisation once it is proved that the contract is sham. A sham contract is one which is just for name sake and everything is decided by the principal employer, like, principal employer decides the wages of contract labour, he grants leaves to contract labour, he takes disciplinary action against the contract worker, supervises the contract labour etc.
If the wages is fixed by he contract labour, naturally, the contract will become sham. In a genuine contract, the principal employer does not have any control over who is being deployed in his establishment. What matters is the number of employees and not by name. If the employee has claimed regularisation, normally, the employer should ask the contractor to remove him and deploy some other person in his place. That has not happened in this case. Moreover, the worker is demanding wage increase from the principal employer. In this situation entertaining such demand itself proves that contract is sham or camouflage.
If it is a genuine contract, the principal employer should not allow him to continue in his plant. Let him fight the case from outside. The employer should ask the contractor to deploy some other person in his place. It is to be communicated only to the contractor and the contractor will keep that worker out. Then the question of wage increase will not arise at all. Let the labour department decide whether he should be regularised or not. If the decision is to regularise, then take him, give him wages equal to the grades as applicable at par with other workers.
From India, Kannur
Community Support and Knowledge-base 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.
Case studies on R & S.doc
Circular Dated 28-10-2016 for settlement of PF Death Case Claims within 7 days.pdf
PF Death case Composite Claim Form No 20,10D & 5IF.xls