We are running our unit in a VENDOR PARK since Jan-2010. At first instance we start our production as Contractor having licensee under The Contractor Labour (R&A) Act and run production activity in the premises of customer from Jan-2010 to Oct-2010. W.e.f Nov 2010 we started our manufacturing activity in another premises and obtained license under The Factory Act 1948.In past we hired sub - contractors for supplying of manpower and in present we hire contractor for supplying of manpower.
We have worst misunderstanding with a contractor who worked with us Aug-2010 to April-2011 over deposition of EPF dues. Now that case is in court. The cause of action is that we received summons from 3 courts 1. Court of compensation commissioner 2. Conciliation Officer 3. Authority under the payment of wages act. (The said contractor also one of respondent in all that petitions)
One of workman said to be hired by the said contractor is demanding his balance wages/legal dues from us --- However in our record there is no name of that workman so can he claim from us :-
1. Unpaid wages/legal dues
2. Compensation under Employees compensation Act
3. Claim of Re-reinstatement under sec 2(s) of the ID Act
Suggest what is fit for our defense?
From India, New Delhi
16We have worst misunderstanding with a contractor who worked with us Aug-2010 to April-2011 over deposition of EPF dues. Now that case is in court. The cause of action is that we received summons from 3 courts 1. Court of compensation commissioner 2. Conciliation Officer 3. Authority under the payment of wages act. (The said contractor also one of respondent in all that petitions)
One of workman said to be hired by the said contractor is demanding his balance wages/legal dues from us --- However in our record there is no name of that workman so can he claim from us :-
1. Unpaid wages/legal dues
2. Compensation under Employees compensation Act
3. Claim of Re-reinstatement under sec 2(s) of the ID Act
Suggest what is fit for our defense?
From India, New Delhi
Dear, From your very brief description, it is not very clear as to 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. 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. Pl give more details to examine the matter further.
From India, Bhopal
From India, Bhopal
- The workman claimant has never been employed by us nor by any contractor and their is no record exist of the said claimant (however it come to know that he is a close relative of the contractor-and he is doing to harass us)
- As per our record no case was reported of any accident out of an employment injury (However its revels from an investigation that the said claimant was meet with an motor cycle accident on one of the rode route, exclusively not concern of us.
- Agreed prime responsibility is lied upon the principal employer but their could be exist master-servant relationship existence is must. In this case we never deployed him through any contractor.
From India, New Delhi
- As per our record no case was reported of any accident out of an employment injury (However its revels from an investigation that the said claimant was meet with an motor cycle accident on one of the rode route, exclusively not concern of us.
- Agreed prime responsibility is lied upon the principal employer but their could be exist master-servant relationship existence is must. In this case we never deployed him through any contractor.
From India, New Delhi
Dear, As per Section 10 of the EC Act, unless a notice of accident is given immediately thereof, (max two years) , the Commissioner cannot take cognizance of the claim. I presume no notice has been received and hence raise this objection at the appropriate time. Road accident will not be eligible at any rate as the accident did not arise out of employment. As regards the ID Act proceedings, the position is very clear to you.
From India, Bhopal
From India, Bhopal
Exactly the limitation is 2 years to entertain a suit for compensation under EC Act the claim is time Bar - but before filing the claim he filed application for condone delay. We have to oppose it and see what happened
From India, New Delhi
From India, New Delhi
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Employers' Liability Act 1938.pdf
Tax Liability.doc