The theoretical and legal points on the deployment of contract labor are very well discussed and elaborated above. In real business, companies do deploy contract labor in perennial types of jobs, and in certain cases, contract labor is deployed in positions where permanent employees are also engaged in the same or similar jobs, which may attract litigation under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Such deployment increases the possibility of future IR disturbances and legal complications.
One of the most important reasons to take such apparent risks is probably low-cost labor, the availability of such labor in the market, poor control in the government machinery, and the reluctance of unionized labor to deliver proper work to the employer.
In business, risk and return are positively correlated. Contract labor will continue to be deployed, despite industry/factory-specific IR and legal setbacks, as seen in Air India, SAIL, many other companies, and recently in the Mehsana Factory of Maruti. I seek the contribution and comments of experts in this field from different parts of India on the following points.
1. What happens if we deploy contract labor in perennial types of jobs: Legally, contract labor cannot raise disputes against the principal employer and seek permanency, even if they are deployed in perennial types of jobs unless the company/industry has been prohibited by the labor department to deploy contract labor in such a category of job. As such, there will be no cognizance of such disputes.
2. In the landmark award in the case of SAIL: I find that even if a dispute is settled through adjudication/court in favor of contract labor, the judiciary, at most, may prohibit the deployment of contract labor in such cases but cannot impose/pass an award on the principal employer to regularize such contract labor.
3. Criticism of the recent Maruti case: I saw criticism of the recent Maruti case (where one of our colleagues, who also happens to be one of my classmates in XISS, died out of labor outrage) that the HR Department was responsible for such outrage. I wish the HR community could give a befitting reply to such criticism.