Navigating Contractor Disputes: How Should We Handle Wage Claims and Legal Challenges?

We are running our unit in a VENDOR PARK since Jan 2010. Initially, we started our production as a contractor under The Contractor Labour (R&A) Act, operating on the premises of a customer from Jan 2010 to Oct 2010. Starting from Nov 2010, we began our manufacturing activity in another location and obtained a license under The Factory Act 1948. In the past, we hired sub-contractors for the supply of manpower, whereas currently, we hire contractors for the same purpose.

We have encountered a significant misunderstanding with a contractor who worked with us from Aug 2010 to April 2011 regarding the deposition of EPF dues. This matter is now in court. Three courts have issued summons to us:
1. Court of Compensation Commissioner
2. Conciliation Officer
3. Authority under the Payment of Wages Act.

The mentioned contractor is also one of the respondents in all these petitions.

A worker, allegedly hired by the contractor, is demanding his outstanding wages/legal dues from us. However, there is no record of this worker in our files. Can he claim from us:

1. Unpaid wages/legal dues
2. Compensation under the Employees Compensation Act
3. Claim for Reinstatement under section 2(s) of the ID Act

What defense strategy do you recommend for us in this situation?

From your very brief description, it is not very clear whether any accident was caused to that workman. Unless the particulars of it are furnished, we cannot have any insight into the issues involved. At any rate, the Principal Employer has primary responsibility under the Employee Compensation Act. The same is the position under the Payment of Wages Act too. As regards conciliation proceedings under the ID Act, it is only the employer (contractor) who is responsible. You can raise the plea of NO master-servant relationship and press for being deleted from the list of respondents. Please give more details to examine the matter further.

Regards

Claimant's Employment and Accident Investigation

The workman claimant has never been employed by us nor by any contractor, and there is no record of the said claimant's existence. However, it has come to our attention that he is a close relative of the contractor and is attempting to harass us.

According to our records, no cases of accidents resulting from employment injuries have been reported. However, it has been revealed through an investigation that the said claimant was involved in a motorcycle accident on a route that is not related to our operations.

The primary responsibility lies with the principal employer, but the existence of a master-servant relationship is essential. In this case, we never deployed him through any contractor.

Exactly, the limitation is 2 years to entertain a suit for compensation under the EC Act. The claim is time-barred, but before filing the claim, he filed an application to condone the delay. We have to oppose it and see what happens.