Issue of Safety Shoes and Uniforms on a Contributory Basis
I understand that some manufacturing units are deducting a certain token amount towards Safety Shoes and Uniform costs from the employees to make them feel like they have purchased it.
Is this lawful? Please examine the issue.
Regards,
From India, Jamshedpur
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
22I understand that some manufacturing units are deducting a certain token amount towards Safety Shoes and Uniform costs from the employees to make them feel like they have purchased it.
Is this lawful? Please examine the issue.
Regards,
From India, Jamshedpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Providing safety shoes and uniforms is a requirement of the business, as well as a necessity for the health and safety of the employees. The company is obligated to provide these items due to the nature of the work. It is mandatory to supply them to the employees, and recovering the costs from employees is neither correct, ethical, nor lawful.
Regards, Tushar Swar
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(2)Amend(0)
Regards, Tushar Swar
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(2)Amend(0)
As mentioned by Tushar, the employer must provide safety shoes, uniforms, safety helmets, and other personal protective equipment (PPE) to all workers, including contractor workers. The employer is entitled to recover the cost of these items if a worker leaves their job without fulfilling the terms and conditions before the specified period.
From India, Kumbakonam
Acknowledge(2)Amend(0)
From India, Kumbakonam
Acknowledge(2)Amend(0)
Providing PPEs to employees is mandatory. On mutual understanding, employees will be provided with stitching charges when cloth is supplied for them. Repair of safety shoes will also be undertaken at the worksite as a welfare measure.
From India, Visakhapatnam
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
From India, Visakhapatnam
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
The issue of safety shoes and uniforms being provided to employees is in compliance with the safety requirements of the job and the organization, whether mandated by the Factories Act/Rules or otherwise. These items are not issued by the employer based on the employee's preferences. Therefore, the question of recovering any amount, regardless of the ratio, is not permissible either by the statute or otherwise.
Regards,
S.K. Johri
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Regards,
S.K. Johri
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
I appreciate the correct answers given by the members. It is surprising and shocking to note that there are companies who stoop so low as to even recover a part of the PPEs issued to employees. Such bad practices should be condemned and brought to the notice of authorities.
Employee Contribution to PPE
What happens if an employee is not able to or does not want to contribute or "purchase"? Does the company refuse to issue him these safety appliances, putting him at risk???
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Employee Contribution to PPE
What happens if an employee is not able to or does not want to contribute or "purchase"? Does the company refuse to issue him these safety appliances, putting him at risk???
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Personal Protective Equipment: Legal Considerations
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is the second line of defense for employee protection. The first line of defense is to eliminate accident-causing situations in the workplace.
In the Factories Act, 1948, there are specific provisions for providing personal protective equipment for workers exposed to unsafe and unhealthy environments. It is also the intention of the law that these personal protective equipment shall be of such type and made of such materials that they withstand the specific hazards for which they are actually being used. You are requested to refer to the rules framed in your state under the Factories Act, 1948, for more details in this regard. This being the legal position, recovering the cost of PPEs is not legal.
Regards,
Satori S.
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is the second line of defense for employee protection. The first line of defense is to eliminate accident-causing situations in the workplace.
In the Factories Act, 1948, there are specific provisions for providing personal protective equipment for workers exposed to unsafe and unhealthy environments. It is also the intention of the law that these personal protective equipment shall be of such type and made of such materials that they withstand the specific hazards for which they are actually being used. You are requested to refer to the rules framed in your state under the Factories Act, 1948, for more details in this regard. This being the legal position, recovering the cost of PPEs is not legal.
Regards,
Satori S.
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Your question is valid and does invite a slew of thoughts. However, may I give a perspective where, for example, when a person works in a company, they expect the company building to be strong, with a stable foundation, adequate ventilation, and sufficient light in the cubicles and offices during the summer days. Just because a company provides these does not mean they should charge an employee for it.
Similarly, protective gear is required to save and protect the lives of people who are working for the company. This is a basic right and a necessary requirement for a person working. Generally, companies provide safety gear and change it approximately every three months. This is a standard and basic requirement that should be provided to employees at no cost. Legally, one should not have to cover the cost.
But yes, if a company does not have a good policy, they will end up with workers coming to you every month with reasons on how they lost their equipment, damaged, misplaced it, etc., and you will need to end up providing them with extras. It is a balance of providing basic facilities and protection while ensuring that it is not taken for granted.
If this is the reason for charging them money, the perspective is understandable. But instead of making them pay, perhaps companies can instill a policy wherein they set a limit on the number of overalls a person will be given at no cost, or conditions under which they can claim a certain number of overalls per month. In case of willful damage, etc., they may need to bear a small portion of the cost.
Thanks for raising the query for examination.
Regards,
Deena Jagasia
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Similarly, protective gear is required to save and protect the lives of people who are working for the company. This is a basic right and a necessary requirement for a person working. Generally, companies provide safety gear and change it approximately every three months. This is a standard and basic requirement that should be provided to employees at no cost. Legally, one should not have to cover the cost.
But yes, if a company does not have a good policy, they will end up with workers coming to you every month with reasons on how they lost their equipment, damaged, misplaced it, etc., and you will need to end up providing them with extras. It is a balance of providing basic facilities and protection while ensuring that it is not taken for granted.
If this is the reason for charging them money, the perspective is understandable. But instead of making them pay, perhaps companies can instill a policy wherein they set a limit on the number of overalls a person will be given at no cost, or conditions under which they can claim a certain number of overalls per month. In case of willful damage, etc., they may need to bear a small portion of the cost.
Thanks for raising the query for examination.
Regards,
Deena Jagasia
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Uniform and Footwear Provision in Our Organization
Following is a very good practice in my organization. We provide uniforms and footwear to all employees.
What We Provide:
- 3 shirts
- 2 trousers
- shoes
- sweater
How We Process:
- $3000 deducted from the first-month salary
- reimbursed after 6 months
Why: Nowadays, attrition is very high. Providing uniforms and footwear can help control it.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Kanika
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Following is a very good practice in my organization. We provide uniforms and footwear to all employees.
What We Provide:
- 3 shirts
- 2 trousers
- shoes
- sweater
How We Process:
- $3000 deducted from the first-month salary
- reimbursed after 6 months
Why: Nowadays, attrition is very high. Providing uniforms and footwear can help control it.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Kanika
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I have read the posts. I agree that it is a good practice to provide PPE free of cost. However, i am not clear where in law does it say you can not recover the cost of the same from the employee
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
The law stipulates the provision of safety/protective clothing, as well as helmets, safety boots, and safety belts. An employee may not like to pay for these items, but the employer is obligated to provide them. It is the nature of management to try to meet the statutory obligation by providing them free of cost. You may not find it codified, but you will appreciate the position.
Regards,
S.K. Johri
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Regards,
S.K. Johri
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Uniform and Safety Shoes in Industries
The issue of uniforms for employees is common in industries. It is for uniformity and also for the safety of employees, especially when clothes become soiled due to the nature of their work or duties in factories.
The provision of shoes is for foot safety in case of any untoward incident to prevent foot injuries at work. Normally, they are supplied by the company once a year or every two years, based on the nature of the work, free of cost. However, some employees, without taking responsibility, do not wear or lose their uniforms and shoes due to negligence. They also fail to wear shoes and uniforms over time.
Encouraging Responsibility Through Contribution
To instill seriousness, some companies make uniforms and shoes a part of the partnership to encourage employees to take ownership. A token or nominal amount is deducted from their pay for this purpose to promote a sense of responsibility. This approach is to ensure their contribution, rather than otherwise. This aspect should be appreciated.
Regards,
D. Gurumurthy
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The issue of uniforms for employees is common in industries. It is for uniformity and also for the safety of employees, especially when clothes become soiled due to the nature of their work or duties in factories.
The provision of shoes is for foot safety in case of any untoward incident to prevent foot injuries at work. Normally, they are supplied by the company once a year or every two years, based on the nature of the work, free of cost. However, some employees, without taking responsibility, do not wear or lose their uniforms and shoes due to negligence. They also fail to wear shoes and uniforms over time.
Encouraging Responsibility Through Contribution
To instill seriousness, some companies make uniforms and shoes a part of the partnership to encourage employees to take ownership. A token or nominal amount is deducted from their pay for this purpose to promote a sense of responsibility. This approach is to ensure their contribution, rather than otherwise. This aspect should be appreciated.
Regards,
D. Gurumurthy
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Though it is a requirement of employment that the employee follows certain rules or uses certain tools, it is not necessary that the employer pays for it. It can be a clearly stated term of employment that you get this item at your cost or that you will be charged for it.
For example, today every employer wants employees to have a cell phone, but employees are required to buy and pay for it on their own. Sales reps are required to wear ties as part of the uniform, but the company does not pay for it. So, unless stated specifically, nothing legally requires the employer to pay for the shoes.
For example, when a company specifies that MR needs to travel on bikes and that all bike users need to use helmets, do they have to pay for the helmet or can they ask the employee to buy his own?
The only link I see here is the sec 7A stipulation of maintaining a safe environment. But again, that would really mean following safety regulations, safety systems on machines, no fumes, etc., but not necessarily to provide free shoes. Is there any law or decision that links this point? I wish to understand for academic interest since I am sure someone will at some time argue on that line.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
For example, today every employer wants employees to have a cell phone, but employees are required to buy and pay for it on their own. Sales reps are required to wear ties as part of the uniform, but the company does not pay for it. So, unless stated specifically, nothing legally requires the employer to pay for the shoes.
For example, when a company specifies that MR needs to travel on bikes and that all bike users need to use helmets, do they have to pay for the helmet or can they ask the employee to buy his own?
The only link I see here is the sec 7A stipulation of maintaining a safe environment. But again, that would really mean following safety regulations, safety systems on machines, no fumes, etc., but not necessarily to provide free shoes. Is there any law or decision that links this point? I wish to understand for academic interest since I am sure someone will at some time argue on that line.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It is interesting to see the discussion going in a direction that seeks to recover the cost of the PPEs from the employees. It is being argued that although the law does ask the employer to provide it, nowhere does it say that the employer cannot recover the cost.
There can be arguments for the sake of arguments. In Hindi, they are called "Tarka," "Vitarka," and "Kutarka." It is the last one that one should guard against. Kutarka or 'bad arguments' goes like this:
A glass of water is half full.
It means it is half empty.
Therefore, half empty means half full.
So 'empty' is equal to 'full'!!!
I have only two points to make with respect to the discussion going on.
The Law and Employer Responsibilities
The law requires the employer to provide several things for the safety and welfare of the employees. For example, under the Factories Act, they range from providing cool drinking water, washing facilities, to canteen, creche, First Aid Box, Ambulance, Welfare officer, etc. Since nowhere does it say that the employer should not recover the costs from employees, should an employer recover pro rata costs from employees for expenses in providing these, such as the cost of running the creche, the salary of the Welfare Officer, etc.? Cost of running the canteen, and other facilities??
If this is so, then no employee will get any salary!! In any case, the labor cost components come to 8-12% of the total production cost. If all such expenses for complying with the laws and running the business are recovered from employees, there would not be any need to pay any salary. I think this seems to be the attitude of companies that are actually anti-social elements incorporated to hoodwink the law. These are the kind of companies who will think of even breaking down the MINIMUM WAGES into several components with MINISCULE BASIC PAY, so that they pay less PF and other statutory obligations. Who are they trying to fool???
Recovery and Legal Compliance
My second point is: Before one thinks of RECOVERING WHATEVER AMOUNT one thinks fit, from the salary of employees; I suggest one should thoroughly study the PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936. About the problem of employees losing their PPEs again and again, there is a procedure for taking DISCIPLINARY ACTION for such negligence. When such companies can merrily TERMINATE employees at will, why can they not take Disciplinary Actions??
It seems they are MORE INTERESTED in recovering money from ill-paid employees. Also, why do these companies hesitate in IMPOSING FINES, instead of recovering money?? The simple reason is, FINES have to be shown in the specified registers, which has to be shown to Labor Authorities, and they will definitely seek justifications. Moreover, the FINES cannot be kept by the Employers but have to be given to the Labor Welfare Fund of the concerned state. So the companies feel it is better to enjoy the recovery from employees.
It is unfortunate that employees, especially workmen, are too scared to knock at the doors of the Labor Court against such ILLEGAL RECOVERIES. More appalling is the fact that HRs, either due to ignorance of laws or to get favors from the Management, are a willing party to such acts.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(1)
Amend(0)
There can be arguments for the sake of arguments. In Hindi, they are called "Tarka," "Vitarka," and "Kutarka." It is the last one that one should guard against. Kutarka or 'bad arguments' goes like this:
A glass of water is half full.
It means it is half empty.
Therefore, half empty means half full.
So 'empty' is equal to 'full'!!!
I have only two points to make with respect to the discussion going on.
The Law and Employer Responsibilities
The law requires the employer to provide several things for the safety and welfare of the employees. For example, under the Factories Act, they range from providing cool drinking water, washing facilities, to canteen, creche, First Aid Box, Ambulance, Welfare officer, etc. Since nowhere does it say that the employer should not recover the costs from employees, should an employer recover pro rata costs from employees for expenses in providing these, such as the cost of running the creche, the salary of the Welfare Officer, etc.? Cost of running the canteen, and other facilities??
If this is so, then no employee will get any salary!! In any case, the labor cost components come to 8-12% of the total production cost. If all such expenses for complying with the laws and running the business are recovered from employees, there would not be any need to pay any salary. I think this seems to be the attitude of companies that are actually anti-social elements incorporated to hoodwink the law. These are the kind of companies who will think of even breaking down the MINIMUM WAGES into several components with MINISCULE BASIC PAY, so that they pay less PF and other statutory obligations. Who are they trying to fool???
Recovery and Legal Compliance
My second point is: Before one thinks of RECOVERING WHATEVER AMOUNT one thinks fit, from the salary of employees; I suggest one should thoroughly study the PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936. About the problem of employees losing their PPEs again and again, there is a procedure for taking DISCIPLINARY ACTION for such negligence. When such companies can merrily TERMINATE employees at will, why can they not take Disciplinary Actions??
It seems they are MORE INTERESTED in recovering money from ill-paid employees. Also, why do these companies hesitate in IMPOSING FINES, instead of recovering money?? The simple reason is, FINES have to be shown in the specified registers, which has to be shown to Labor Authorities, and they will definitely seek justifications. Moreover, the FINES cannot be kept by the Employers but have to be given to the Labor Welfare Fund of the concerned state. So the companies feel it is better to enjoy the recovery from employees.
It is unfortunate that employees, especially workmen, are too scared to knock at the doors of the Labor Court against such ILLEGAL RECOVERIES. More appalling is the fact that HRs, either due to ignorance of laws or to get favors from the Management, are a willing party to such acts.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
A few corrections to your arguments:
For water and washing facilities, it is specified that they must be free of cost. The same is specified for the crèche.
Canteen: Many companies deduct money from employees' salaries for food. It is not always free. In fact, few companies provide it free today.
The welfare officer is an officer of the company, so there is no question of recovering that money from employees. He rarely does things for employees anyway.
Frankly, I do not see the relevance of the minimum wages breakup in this context.
And, no. The wages paid are far in excess of the cost of all of these, and there will still be a lot left to pay.
In terms of fines, the amount specified is such a small amount that it makes no difference to the employees. For example, someone caught spitting can be fined not more than ₹3 per incident. The worker will laugh it off. Incidentally, you need to hold a departmental inquiry to fine him ₹3. The maximum amount of fines that can be charged in a month is not more than 3% of gross wages (excluding overtime). Again, workers don't care as it makes an insignificant impact. Even getting the list of fines approved is a huge task.
That is the reason companies do not bother with fines. In the given context, fines cannot be retained, so anyone losing PPE and being fined does not help as the money cannot be used by the company to buy a replacement. Imagine having to conduct a domestic inquiry to penalize a worker for losing a shoe. The cost-benefit does not come close to reality.
Your point on the Payment of Wages Act is probably the one I was looking for, which is that unless specified in sections 6 and 7, you cannot deduct it from wages. So my original question—where in law is it explicitly prohibited—is now answered. We need to look in sections 6 and 7 of the Payment of Wages Act and not in the Factories Act where the requirement is given.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
For water and washing facilities, it is specified that they must be free of cost. The same is specified for the crèche.
Canteen: Many companies deduct money from employees' salaries for food. It is not always free. In fact, few companies provide it free today.
The welfare officer is an officer of the company, so there is no question of recovering that money from employees. He rarely does things for employees anyway.
Frankly, I do not see the relevance of the minimum wages breakup in this context.
And, no. The wages paid are far in excess of the cost of all of these, and there will still be a lot left to pay.
In terms of fines, the amount specified is such a small amount that it makes no difference to the employees. For example, someone caught spitting can be fined not more than ₹3 per incident. The worker will laugh it off. Incidentally, you need to hold a departmental inquiry to fine him ₹3. The maximum amount of fines that can be charged in a month is not more than 3% of gross wages (excluding overtime). Again, workers don't care as it makes an insignificant impact. Even getting the list of fines approved is a huge task.
That is the reason companies do not bother with fines. In the given context, fines cannot be retained, so anyone losing PPE and being fined does not help as the money cannot be used by the company to buy a replacement. Imagine having to conduct a domestic inquiry to penalize a worker for losing a shoe. The cost-benefit does not come close to reality.
Your point on the Payment of Wages Act is probably the one I was looking for, which is that unless specified in sections 6 and 7, you cannot deduct it from wages. So my original question—where in law is it explicitly prohibited—is now answered. We need to look in sections 6 and 7 of the Payment of Wages Act and not in the Factories Act where the requirement is given.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Saswata,
I am reproducing Rule 54 of Tamil Nadu BOCW Rules 2006:
54. Use of Safety Helmets and Shoes:
(1) The Inspector may, having regard to the nature of hazards involved in the work carried out, order the employer in writing to supply to the building workers exposed to a particular hazard at a building or other construction work, any personal protective equipment, namely safety helmets and shoes as may be found necessary.
(2) The employer shall ensure that all persons who are performing such work wear safety shoes and helmets conforming to the national standards.
While I had a discussion with the Factory Inspector who is holding additional responsibility of BOCW Inspector, he confirmed that the BOCW Inspector has the power to issue instructions to the construction company to provide the PPEs free of cost. We are issuing the PPEs at no cost. However, if the workmen run away before the specified period is completed, we deduct the cost of PPE on a pro-rata basis. The contractors also agree to this deduction as it is done with their express consent.
This is for your information.
Thank you.
From India, Kumbakonam
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
I am reproducing Rule 54 of Tamil Nadu BOCW Rules 2006:
54. Use of Safety Helmets and Shoes:
(1) The Inspector may, having regard to the nature of hazards involved in the work carried out, order the employer in writing to supply to the building workers exposed to a particular hazard at a building or other construction work, any personal protective equipment, namely safety helmets and shoes as may be found necessary.
(2) The employer shall ensure that all persons who are performing such work wear safety shoes and helmets conforming to the national standards.
While I had a discussion with the Factory Inspector who is holding additional responsibility of BOCW Inspector, he confirmed that the BOCW Inspector has the power to issue instructions to the construction company to provide the PPEs free of cost. We are issuing the PPEs at no cost. However, if the workmen run away before the specified period is completed, we deduct the cost of PPE on a pro-rata basis. The contractors also agree to this deduction as it is done with their express consent.
This is for your information.
Thank you.
From India, Kumbakonam
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Thank you for your valuable input with real-life experiences. I agree with you that the only time it is fully justified to recover (pro-rata) the cost of PPEs is when the workman leaves the job without proper notice and final settlement and does not return the PPEs.
At other times, it should be the responsibility of the employer to provide the mandated PPEs to the workman free of cost.
This is not the same in other situations; for example, when pizza or fast-food delivery boys/salesmen are recruited with the condition that they must have their own two-wheelers and a valid driving license. In such cases, the person is bound to comply with the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act and should have a helmet while driving. Since the recruitment has been done with the necessary requirement of having a two-wheeler (and the helmet is a part of the package), the employer is not required to provide it, as it is the duty of the owner to have helmets.
Similarly, in the case of a salesperson, the company may have a dress policy to make them wear ties. Since it is not a life-saving device nor mandated by law, the company may or may not provide it depending on its policy and culture.
However, the case of safety devices for work in a particular industry is entirely different and in most cases required by law. For example, in the high-rise construction industry, a safety belt is a must. Also, in highly noise-polluting industries such as power plants, it is necessary that workers wear earplugs. Police officers of the anti-terrorist squad may need to wear bulletproof vests.
In such situations, it is the employer who should provide these and not ask the employees to pay for them.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
At other times, it should be the responsibility of the employer to provide the mandated PPEs to the workman free of cost.
This is not the same in other situations; for example, when pizza or fast-food delivery boys/salesmen are recruited with the condition that they must have their own two-wheelers and a valid driving license. In such cases, the person is bound to comply with the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act and should have a helmet while driving. Since the recruitment has been done with the necessary requirement of having a two-wheeler (and the helmet is a part of the package), the employer is not required to provide it, as it is the duty of the owner to have helmets.
Similarly, in the case of a salesperson, the company may have a dress policy to make them wear ties. Since it is not a life-saving device nor mandated by law, the company may or may not provide it depending on its policy and culture.
However, the case of safety devices for work in a particular industry is entirely different and in most cases required by law. For example, in the high-rise construction industry, a safety belt is a must. Also, in highly noise-polluting industries such as power plants, it is necessary that workers wear earplugs. Police officers of the anti-terrorist squad may need to wear bulletproof vests.
In such situations, it is the employer who should provide these and not ask the employees to pay for them.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Although Raj has given me the exact answer I require (i.e., reference to sections 6 and 7 of the Payment of Wages Act, which explicitly disallows deductions other than those listed), I would like to discuss this further. The wording of the section that you quoted clearly states that when instructed by the inspector, the employer will be required to supply PPE. This clearly means it must be given free of cost. There is no such explicit provision in the Factories Act. I have come across this argument many times (though we insist in our reports that it must be provided free, quoting section 7A). That was my original query.
Thanks for your additional inputs. Does anyone know of any court decisions to strengthen the argument?
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Thanks for your additional inputs. Does anyone know of any court decisions to strengthen the argument?
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Even though the helmet is considered protective equipment, it is used in all places for private and official use. (Referring to wearing a helmet as protective gear, Tamil Actor Mr. Ajith Kumar stated in a press conference, "Sweating is better than bleeding"). We are discussing the personal protective equipment (PPE) required to be used within the work premises. It is the responsibility of the employer to provide a safe working environment for their employees. Therefore, the PPE is provided free of cost. However, if a worker absconds with the PPE and subsequently leaves the job, the supplied PPE becomes wasted. Individuals would not use safety shoes or safety jackets that have been used by others, even if the employer offers them for free. This lack of control over the expenditure on purchasing PPE is why I suggested that for those who leave the workplace before the stipulated tenure, the cost of the PPEs can be recovered on a prorated basis.
Thank you.
From India, Kumbakonam
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Thank you.
From India, Kumbakonam
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
This is a standard reason mentioned by contractors in many places where we conduct audits. They mention that people leave without notice and take away the PPE, and we cannot afford to provide new ones each time. The principal employer does not pay for this separately as it is included in the computed rate.
Solutions to Address PPE Cost Issues
To resolve this issue, we need to come up with a fair solution, regardless of what the audit report states. Some solutions that have been suggested from time to time include:
- Keeping a set of helmets and shoes in the factory for new employees to use. After one week, they can be provided with new ones. The cost of the PPE is offset by the unpaid wages if the employee leaves without notice.
- Asking the employee to pay for the PPE when they join and reimbursing it with their salary after a month of work. However, this may not comply with certain regulations.
- Having the employee purchase their own shoes and helmet as a condition of joining and reimbursing them with their first wages.
It is challenging to keep a common set of shoes for new employees due to hygiene concerns, but helmets and goggles seem to be acceptable.
It is evident that neither the contractor nor the principal employer is willing to bear the cost of PPE each time a new employee joins. Therefore, a prorate adjustment may be the most suitable solution, though its implications under the act need to be considered.
In a quote by boss2966, the importance of providing PPEs for workplace safety is emphasized. Recovering the cost of PPEs from employees who leave before the stipulated tenure on a prorated basis is suggested as a solution.
Let's explore more practical ideas to address this challenge effectively.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Solutions to Address PPE Cost Issues
To resolve this issue, we need to come up with a fair solution, regardless of what the audit report states. Some solutions that have been suggested from time to time include:
- Keeping a set of helmets and shoes in the factory for new employees to use. After one week, they can be provided with new ones. The cost of the PPE is offset by the unpaid wages if the employee leaves without notice.
- Asking the employee to pay for the PPE when they join and reimbursing it with their salary after a month of work. However, this may not comply with certain regulations.
- Having the employee purchase their own shoes and helmet as a condition of joining and reimbursing them with their first wages.
It is challenging to keep a common set of shoes for new employees due to hygiene concerns, but helmets and goggles seem to be acceptable.
It is evident that neither the contractor nor the principal employer is willing to bear the cost of PPE each time a new employee joins. Therefore, a prorate adjustment may be the most suitable solution, though its implications under the act need to be considered.
In a quote by boss2966, the importance of providing PPEs for workplace safety is emphasized. Recovering the cost of PPEs from employees who leave before the stipulated tenure on a prorated basis is suggested as a solution.
Let's explore more practical ideas to address this challenge effectively.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This is a standard reason mentioned by contractors at many places we audit. They say that people leave without notice and carry away the PPE, and we can't afford to give a new set to every person. The principal employer does not pay for this separately, as it is a part of the computed rate. We need to find a fair solution; otherwise, the issue will not be resolved regardless of the audit report's findings.
Proposed Solutions for PPE Management
We have come up with the following solutions from time to time. If anyone has other solutions, please add to them:
- Keep a set of helmets and shoes in the factory for the use of new employees. After 1 week, provide them with new ones. The current minimum wage is about ₹230. Therefore, 1 week's wage is ₹1380. The cost of helmets, goggles, and shoes is about ₹1200 together. So, if an employee leaves without notice with the PPE, the unpaid wages exceed the PPE cost, allowing for a set-off. If the employee leaves after a week, the cost can be recovered from the unpaid wages of the current month since wages are paid 7-10 days after the month ends.
- Ask the employee to pay for the PPE upon joining and reimburse it with salary after they have worked for a month (this may conflict with sections 6 and 7 of POWA, as payment to the employer amounts to a deduction).
- Require the employee to purchase shoes and a helmet with their own money as a condition of joining and then reimburse them with the first wages. By the time wages are paid, the contractor has one week's salary to adjust if the employee runs off with the PPE.
Keeping a set of common-use shoes for new employees poses hygiene issues, but helmets and goggles are likely acceptable.
Please suggest other practical ideas. Let's be clear: no contractor will bear ₹1200 each time a new employee joins as their profits suffer significantly in cases of high attrition. On the other hand, most principal employers will also refuse to bear this cost. That's the reality. So, prorate adjustment is probably the best idea. But does this amount to a deduction under the act?
Dear Saswata, as a matter of fact, safety shoes are issued free of cost. If a worker has worked for 3 months, they do not need to return or pay for them, and after 3 months, they will receive another pair of shoes. However, helmets and goggles do not have a specified life period; they are issued only once. If a person works for a short period, the cost will be recovered. If they leave after 6 months, the cost of helmets and goggles will also be waived.
This is the same practice followed at many construction sites. Hence, the PPEs are supplied free of cost only.
From India, Kumbakonam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Proposed Solutions for PPE Management
We have come up with the following solutions from time to time. If anyone has other solutions, please add to them:
- Keep a set of helmets and shoes in the factory for the use of new employees. After 1 week, provide them with new ones. The current minimum wage is about ₹230. Therefore, 1 week's wage is ₹1380. The cost of helmets, goggles, and shoes is about ₹1200 together. So, if an employee leaves without notice with the PPE, the unpaid wages exceed the PPE cost, allowing for a set-off. If the employee leaves after a week, the cost can be recovered from the unpaid wages of the current month since wages are paid 7-10 days after the month ends.
- Ask the employee to pay for the PPE upon joining and reimburse it with salary after they have worked for a month (this may conflict with sections 6 and 7 of POWA, as payment to the employer amounts to a deduction).
- Require the employee to purchase shoes and a helmet with their own money as a condition of joining and then reimburse them with the first wages. By the time wages are paid, the contractor has one week's salary to adjust if the employee runs off with the PPE.
Keeping a set of common-use shoes for new employees poses hygiene issues, but helmets and goggles are likely acceptable.
Please suggest other practical ideas. Let's be clear: no contractor will bear ₹1200 each time a new employee joins as their profits suffer significantly in cases of high attrition. On the other hand, most principal employers will also refuse to bear this cost. That's the reality. So, prorate adjustment is probably the best idea. But does this amount to a deduction under the act?
Dear Saswata, as a matter of fact, safety shoes are issued free of cost. If a worker has worked for 3 months, they do not need to return or pay for them, and after 3 months, they will receive another pair of shoes. However, helmets and goggles do not have a specified life period; they are issued only once. If a person works for a short period, the cost will be recovered. If they leave after 6 months, the cost of helmets and goggles will also be waived.
This is the same practice followed at many construction sites. Hence, the PPEs are supplied free of cost only.
From India, Kumbakonam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Employer Administrative Contribution 2017.pdf
Ladder Safety Tips.zip
Safety-safetydr iving_111.pps