Respected Inspector,
Coming to the point, sir, the laborers (skilled) are to be provided to a principal employer in an area where ESIC is implemented. One of my competitors is not having ESIC registration as his office is registered in a non-implemented area, so according to him, he is exempted from ESIC.
Now, the problem between him and me is that I am having an additional expense of 4.75% contribution to ESIC, whereas he is not. So, my rates are higher compared to his rates for the principal employer. My suggestion to the principal employer is that the laborers should be provided on premises where ESIC is implemented, whereas my competitor does not have ESIC registration.
Even though I have all the required documents, just because of the higher rate due to the burden of ESIC contribution, I was disqualified. What are your suggestions in this regard? Is it fair to me?
The only way you have to convince the principal employer is by quoting sections 40 & 41 of the ESI Act, which state that the principal employer will be primarily held responsible for non-payment of statutory ESI payment in respect of all his contract/immediate employees. Since you have a separate ESI Code No., you are diluting their responsibility towards statutory obligations. Furthermore, if any unit is depriving you of this point, immediately contact the area inspector and inform him about the non-coverage of such a unit. After all, the coverage will extend the statutory provisions to the poor workers.
You can further convince the employer by stating that when compared to workers' compensation, compliance under ESI will be much easier, extending the provisions to their family members as well.
Hope you will do your level best. Additionally, I hope that the concept of implemented and non-implemented areas will also be scrapped soon, and your problem will be solved.
Regards