Navigating Contract Labour Act: How Do State Amendments Affect Fees and Registration?

I have a query relating to the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act. As there are many amendments in the act done by states, can anyone let me know the applicability, registration, and license fees of the act for the states of Haryana, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, West Bengal, and Karnataka.

Dear Vishnu,

Why don't you browse the net and collect the information from the Labor Department Portals of the respective States?

Dear Sir,

I have checked, but the latest amendments of various states are not available as the A.P CLRA Act states that if any establishment or contractor employs or employed 50 workmen in the preceding 12 months, then the act is applicable and the fee structure shows for less than 20.

So, I have queries regarding the acts.

Regards,
Vishnu

Probably the best course would be to collect the bare Act with State Rules, the latest edition, or seek the required information under the RTI Act.

To meet immediate requirements, using a state web portal is the best approach. It is a fact that many state portals have not been updated with the latest amendments, but they can still be useful to some extent. To access the most up-to-date version, you will need the latest edition of the book. Any book vendor dealing with legal miscellaneous books can supply the book upon order.

Hi Anonymous,

The Haryana, Andhra Pradesh, and Maharashtra Acts are applicable for 50 or more employees, while in other states, it is applicable for 20 or more employees.

Many of the state labour department websites are not updated, so you can't rely on them. As suggested by other seniors, refer to the bare act for the same.

Feel free to call or revert for any assistance.

One factory outsources graduate staff officers for their manufacturing activity. Is the CO Act applicable?

Respected Umakanthan Sir, I am a little bit confused by the query from our anonymous friend in post #10 above, as well as your response to it. I further want to add to this confusion with my post. However, I am sure you will provide some insights.

After reading your response, I understood what the queriest meant by CO Act. His question, as I now understand it, is whether the outsourced graduate staff/officers engaged in manufacturing activity fall under the CLRA Act or not. Your answer to it is yes - strictly speaking. However, you rightly mentioned that the conjunctive reading of the deeming provision of "contract labor" under section 2(1)(b) and the definition of the term "workman" under section 2(1)(i) of the CLRA Act, 1970 would lead to a negative answer to the query, as the outsourced graduate staff and officers for the manufacturing activity may fall outside the definition of section 2(1)(i) due to their supervisory capacity and salary.

I would like to add to what you said to provide more clarity. Apart from the nature of work, i.e., supervisory capacity combined with their salary, one must also consider the clause prohibiting the employment of contract labor. It is essential to determine whether graduate staff and officers are engaged in core activities or ancillary ones, whether the work is incidental or necessary, and whether it is typically done by regular employees in that establishment, justifying the employment of a significant number of full-time workers.

In reality, many organizations, including MNCs, PSUs, private and government banking sectors, and courts, engage computer programmers, stenographers, office assistants, engineers, technicians, etc., through outsourcing agencies. I have even seen HR Managers working as outsourced employees. Certainly, HR Managers and engineers may not be considered workmen under the CLRA due to their job roles and salaries. However, the question remains unanswered as to whether we can prohibit such employment on a contract or outsourcing basis based on the prohibition clause.

Dear Korgaonkarji, there is a Vedic quote that no two scholars agree on the same issue. That's the problem of a scholarly approach to a given issue. Unless and until any activity of an establishment is specifically prohibited by the appropriate Government under Section 10 of the CLRA Act, 1970, there is no use in scanning the activity such as core, incidental, perennial, or intermittent. Therefore, in such a case, what remains to be seen at first is whether the engagement of such outsourcing is through a contractor. Since the question involves some people in the manufacturing activity of a factory, I said yes only to make the questioner understand the import of the meaning of the term "worker" as defined under the Factories Act, 1948.

Then, what comes next is the question of the application of the regulatory provisions of the CLRA Act, 1970 to such an engagement with a combined reference to the deeming provision of Section 2(1)(b) and the definition of "workman" under Section 2(1)(i) of the Act, which would legally end up with a negative answer to the query as a whole.

Coming to your ultimate question dictated by the sense of equity and justice, I think that this is yet another unanswerable question relating to the sphere of paid employment in a market-driven global economy. The pointer is the recent amendment to the Standing Orders Rules legalizing F.T.C employment.