Hi,
I would like to suggest the following in your defense if the matter is taken to the court.
1. Please check if you have a valid contract subsisting between your company and the contractor, where in there is a specific mention about the type of services offered by the contractor and a service level agreement such as duration of this service, a clause by which the contractor indemnifies the principle employer in the event of litigation s of this sort..
2. Also look for evidences like salary slip, ESI, PF numbers given by the contractor to this employee in question, in support of your defense.
Best Regards,
Raammohan.K
From United Kingdom
I would like to suggest the following in your defense if the matter is taken to the court.
1. Please check if you have a valid contract subsisting between your company and the contractor, where in there is a specific mention about the type of services offered by the contractor and a service level agreement such as duration of this service, a clause by which the contractor indemnifies the principle employer in the event of litigation s of this sort..
2. Also look for evidences like salary slip, ESI, PF numbers given by the contractor to this employee in question, in support of your defense.
Best Regards,
Raammohan.K
From United Kingdom
An interesting point, raj
Since the certificates are only to be issued by HR
And the person issuing it was not authorised
And also employee was not even working for him (he was handling computer data entry work for his boss), would this amount to unauthorised certificates and therefore invalid ?
If I was the boss, I would immediately suspend him and initiate inquiry under corrupt practices act (or whatever the law is in force) to see if the certificate was given in exchange of money
From India, Mumbai
2392Since the certificates are only to be issued by HR
And the person issuing it was not authorised
And also employee was not even working for him (he was handling computer data entry work for his boss), would this amount to unauthorised certificates and therefore invalid ?
If I was the boss, I would immediately suspend him and initiate inquiry under corrupt practices act (or whatever the law is in force) to see if the certificate was given in exchange of money
From India, Mumbai
Dear Mr. Mehabub...,
The matter is very simple the contract labour is only on deemed deputation to your company for a certain period for which you have selected him/her on the basis of an interview. And after the completion of his/her period of deputation you have given an experience certificate based on which he cannot claim any job in your company.
If you have any contracts with the contractor or written communication then send a legal notice to the contractor claiming damages and I am sure the contractor will realize his mistake.
With best regards.
From India, Hyderabad
The matter is very simple the contract labour is only on deemed deputation to your company for a certain period for which you have selected him/her on the basis of an interview. And after the completion of his/her period of deputation you have given an experience certificate based on which he cannot claim any job in your company.
If you have any contracts with the contractor or written communication then send a legal notice to the contractor claiming damages and I am sure the contractor will realize his mistake.
With best regards.
From India, Hyderabad
Mr.Satya,
I do not know why every one tries to scare you.
Just because a contract labourer is working continuously for long time, it does not give him any prescriptive right to claim permanent absorption. The Supreme Court in Sail waterfront workers case (5 member bench) said so. Unless the employment in which the contract labourer is/was working is prohibited and notified under S.10 of CL(R&A) Act, 1970, he cannot claim permanent absorption. Of course, employing a person continuously as contract labourer for such a long period, the principal employer is liable to be punished under the Act, but it does not give the contract labourer employment.
Further, employment in government organisations is regulated by rules and regulations and no body can claim employment dehors the said rules, simply based on experience certificate.
From India, Madras
I do not know why every one tries to scare you.
Just because a contract labourer is working continuously for long time, it does not give him any prescriptive right to claim permanent absorption. The Supreme Court in Sail waterfront workers case (5 member bench) said so. Unless the employment in which the contract labourer is/was working is prohibited and notified under S.10 of CL(R&A) Act, 1970, he cannot claim permanent absorption. Of course, employing a person continuously as contract labourer for such a long period, the principal employer is liable to be punished under the Act, but it does not give the contract labourer employment.
Further, employment in government organisations is regulated by rules and regulations and no body can claim employment dehors the said rules, simply based on experience certificate.
From India, Madras
Dear Satya and other friends,
Could you pl.go thro the discussion taken place in the forum earlier from this link on similar subject.?
www.citehr.com › ... › Human Resource Management
Of course the queriest's problem is slightly different and much would depend on the tendencies of the Actions and Reactions of the persons involved and the management. For the present I prefer to wait and watch.
From India, Bangalore
Could you pl.go thro the discussion taken place in the forum earlier from this link on similar subject.?
www.citehr.com › ... › Human Resource Management
Of course the queriest's problem is slightly different and much would depend on the tendencies of the Actions and Reactions of the persons involved and the management. For the present I prefer to wait and watch.
From India, Bangalore
Dear Satya,
However, without scaring you, with ifs and buts, I would suggest that come to worse the attached SC judgment probably help you how this case could be taken further, this is with regard to a question whether a contract labour with 240 days of continuous service/work could claim permanancy ? Of course it might touch upon a few aspects only.
From India, Bangalore
However, without scaring you, with ifs and buts, I would suggest that come to worse the attached SC judgment probably help you how this case could be taken further, this is with regard to a question whether a contract labour with 240 days of continuous service/work could claim permanancy ? Of course it might touch upon a few aspects only.
From India, Bangalore
I do not see the relevance of the stated case law to the post in this thread. Please explain
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Hi,
As per my understanding the person is working at your organization on a third party contract?
I feel in the contract agreement there should be a clause which says "you can not absorb the contractor's resource in your organization", or somthing similar could help you.
Another way to discourage him is find in what he is not interested and put him in to that work till then just keep telling him we need to discuss or our management is busy with some other organizational activities.
After sometime when he will fedup with his new job function he will not be able to perform and loose the intereset and credibility and will stop claiming.
Hope this works.
Thanks
From India, Mumbai
As per my understanding the person is working at your organization on a third party contract?
I feel in the contract agreement there should be a clause which says "you can not absorb the contractor's resource in your organization", or somthing similar could help you.
Another way to discourage him is find in what he is not interested and put him in to that work till then just keep telling him we need to discuss or our management is busy with some other organizational activities.
After sometime when he will fedup with his new job function he will not be able to perform and loose the intereset and credibility and will stop claiming.
Hope this works.
Thanks
From India, Mumbai
Dear All,
It was wonderful to have all your comments and I am also on the same opinion, but here one more important thing we have to see that is has the contractor issued any latter to the individual? If yes then what all clauses he has put or any other instruction been issued by the contractor etc.. if the case goes to the court then the court will seen all the points and on the basis of that it will be decided. There the CLA is also applicable as the company is Govt. body then they must have some policies which can defiantly protect the interest of the company.
From India, Delhi
It was wonderful to have all your comments and I am also on the same opinion, but here one more important thing we have to see that is has the contractor issued any latter to the individual? If yes then what all clauses he has put or any other instruction been issued by the contractor etc.. if the case goes to the court then the court will seen all the points and on the basis of that it will be decided. There the CLA is also applicable as the company is Govt. body then they must have some policies which can defiantly protect the interest of the company.
From India, 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.
Notification No G.S.R. 1128(E) Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Amendment .pdf
LABOUR CONTRACT AGREEMENT.doc
Contract Labour Act.zip