Umakanthan53
Labour Law & Hr Consultant
Nagarkar Vinayak L
Hr And Employee Relations Consultant
Bhartiya Akhil
Freelancer
Gannahope
Deputy Commissioner Of Labour..a.p.
P.Senthil
Hr Manager

Cite.Co is a repository of information and resources created by industry seniors and experts sharing their real world insights. Join Network
Dear All, "HC: Pujari is not covered within the definition of a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act [Read Judgement]"
https://www.latestlaws.com/latest-ne...ead-judgement/

From India, Mumbai
Yes sir it is true..
But minimum wages were not paid to him by the contractor as pujari is contract employee. Moreover A contract labour has no right to go to court to be continued or regularise as per existing law. One can demand or request but can not knock the door of the court for making permanent. But like All other provisions of regular employees can touch the labour court.

From India, Nellore
Yes sir it is true..
But minimum wages were not paid to him by the contractor as pujari is contract employee. Moreover A contract labour has no right to go to court to be continued or regularise as per existing law. One can demand or request but can not knock the door of the court for making permanent. But like All other provisions of regular employees can touch the labour court.

From India, Nellore
Dear All,
Referring to the Judgement, directly it seems that Temple is not an Industry & a person employed in Temple also is not a workman. The court info is given below.
DECISION OF THE LABOUR COURT
The Labour Court arrived at the conclusion that the temple does not fall within the definition of ‘industry’ and the appellant being employed as Pujari does not fall within the definition of ‘workman’ and consequently, Appellant’s claim was rejected by the impugned award.
rEGARDS
P.Senthil
CBE.

From India, Coimbatore
Dear colleague,
It is a bit strange coming from my learned colleague Dy com of labour, who stated that a contract worker has no right to go to the court for regularisation of his employment.
The courts may decide on the merits of each case coming before it as has happened in the present case of Pujari which has travelled right up to the division bench of the High Court. But to say that the contract labour has no right to knock the doors of the court appears to be misconceived.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR and Employee Relations Consultant

From India, Mumbai
Ya i wecome you sir for discussion pls.
The concept of Contract labour system is developed to avoid permanent jobs. Making permanent of one who joined in any job without proper qualities also demanding for regularisation after 3months then 180days and now 240days in govt or public sectors.
Though this system is not advised but we say only basic norms. Anyone can go any courts even without locastandi.
It is a welknown fact in many cases we heard the Apex court astonished several times why such without primaficee cases coming here but not yet denied in the lower level. I only say in that context I told there is no locastandi for any contract labour to go to court for regularisation in normal situation s. I think you have catched. Sir.

From India, Nellore
Recently in one case a village electrician recruited by Gram panchayath committee worked seven years on temporary basis.
When this system of recruitment banned by G. O. of the state Electricity Board, he was removed. The aggrieved party approached labour court. The Labour court Favoured him and ordered for lost salaries and confirmation. Then the state Electricity Board gone to the High court and there the Division al Bench wondered how do he will be regualarised when he was recruited as temporary employee on contract basis and moreover such recruitment system was banned by Govt. How one can issue reinstatement him as he clearly declared as temporaryemployee.

From India, Nellore
Dear colleague,
The contract labour system is well entrenched now in the industry and with CLRA Act, it has been furher reinforced .
The system has some inherent downsides, but it has created huge employment opportunities to many blue collar and white collar employees .
At the same time it will continue to fuel aspirations in the minds of contract labour for permanency/ regularisation with the principal Employer. To that extent , the disputes will get raised and matters will be resolved either by courts or at the initeative of good employers or by unions for their absorption which is also seen happening in collective bargaining process.
My earlier comments to your post was only to highlight the right which contract labour has to raise the dispute in regard to their absorption/ regularisation with the principal Employer which gets adjudicated by the courts on merits.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR and Employee Relations Consultant

From India, Mumbai
Ha Sir welcome. I have great Regards on you. Sir. This is a debate. Take it easy sir. Just a matter of discussion. Anything goes each by each.. Thank you sir
From India, Nellore
The debate between the two senior members on the right of a contract labor to seek regularisation is quite interesting.
In my considered opinion demand for regularisation by an employee whether he happens to be a temporary workman employed on contingent basis or a contract labor is a rights issue based on the efflux of time and the perennial nature of the particular work. Therefore, judicial precedents will hold good if and only if the contexts are the same or similar. That's why there is the legal maxim " Judges know no law ". It all depends how well the arguments are advanced convincingly by the learned counsels before the court.
Contract labor is recognized as a system of indirect labor and its uncontrolled application in core activities of regular nature would certainly lead to discrminatory labor practice. That's the reason for the enactment of CLRA Act, 1970. But unfortunately, it still remains a paper tiger. Particularly in the era of LPG, the ' manthra ' of ease of operations further diluted the compliance of the provisions of the Act. To be brutally frank, more than 75% of manufacturing industries adopt what is called " Umbrella Contract " in which change of contractor only happens in certain periodicity by rotating the contract labor among the contractors while they work for the same principal employer. Thus, as long as the predominant prevalence of such sham contracts are there, demand for absorption as regular employee by any contract labor cannot be simply brushed aside. The judicial authority at the initial trial stage has to meticulously scan the entire contract and the pattern of the employment and decide the issue according to merits.
Therefore, such rights dispute cannot be dismissed in liminae.

From India, Salem

Please Login To Add Reply






About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service



All rights reserved @ 2020 Cite.Co™