Dear Anonymous,
I endorse the answer by Varghese ji.
I endorse the said answer after considering the below given points:
"Contractor" as defined in CLRA, in relation to an establishment means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the establishment, other than a mere supply of goods of articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor.
A workman as defined in CLRA, shall be deemed to be employed as "contract labour" in or in connection with the work of an establishment when he is hired in or in connection with such work by or through a contractor, with or without the knowledge of the principal employer.
On reading both the terms as above, I conclude that the party who supply and install the transformer is not a contractor under the CLRA and the workmen of such party are not contract labour.
Normally such kind of job is done with the help of less than 10 workers and therefore no question of licence arise. PE also avoids enrolling such party as contractor in his RC since such job do not last for long.
Since the queriest raised this point we have to debate on it.
I have another legal view also in this context which is as under:
The term - undertake to produce a given result necessarily involves the contract of service and the CLRA is applicable only in case of contract of service. Whereas, supply and installation of transformer is not a contract of service but it is a contract for service.
A contract for services is a strictly a business contract between two firms on a buyer and supplier basis. There is no question of any employment relationship between the parties.
This is my view. It is not in CLRA. It is only an academic discussion.
I expect comments on this by experts. One can differ with me. I just expressed my point of views.