The liabilities of a principal employer under the Contract Labour Act are examples of vicarious liability on owners of establishments. The Contract Labour Act provides respite and recourse to contr... 8 days ago Like CommentFollow Flag More Ashish Chaudhary, Binay Kumar and 2 others like this 14 comments Follow Binay Binay Kumar • Dear contract act has been provide easy to control manpower and work by contractor separately but principal employer has never been ignore from their liabilities, of contractor under statuary provisions under contract act, like P.F, ESI, Workmen compensation act,immigration act etc. If contractor fail to timely file returns and payment then principal employer must be liable to pay with penalties .Binay Kumar. 7 days ago• Like Follow Archana Archana Balasubramanian • While i agree with you that philosophically it is a welfare legislation, there are many who would not be aware of this legislation and would not be in a position to protect themselves. A large corporation with a battery of legal experts may be able to protect itself but what about the individual entrepeneur. He needs to be advised on protection. 6 days ago• Like Follow Sharma Sharma Umesh • Of late CLRA has been exploited to shed off the liabilities of regular employees and with changing times, the tendency has increased to the extent that there is no regulation, only deployment of contract labour to execute the work which is the main activity of the principal employer. The provisions of the Act are in winds, no regulation, no compliance and no enforcement. 6 days ago• Like Follow Sanjay Sanjay Malik • Just to avoid benefit to the employees and cost saving, the poor labour force employed through contractors hardly being paid minimum wages and other social security benefits. What to do when Govt itself is the biggest sector who deployed contract labour. Though Principal Employer can not escape from his liabilities. 6 days ago• Like1 Follow Archana Archana Balasubramanian • @Sanjay. this is a very interesting point. despite queries being raised by corporates who wish to comply with the Act, this is probably why it is not being amended. the Act needs to be overhauled if it is expected to achieve its objective. 6 days ago• Like Follow Binay Binay Kumar • Dear Archana Balasubramanian you are very right, for your kind information most of act had been drafted and implemented by British Government to safe queen, we have been bear it with proud because we have been always like stigma of slavery must be alive . Late sri V.V . Giri was labor minister he was unable to pass the act by parliament. So many Indian state Government has been orally ban enforcement officer to visit the factory. Most of these Factory run by loafer and sucker management, they have not been pay minimum wage and other welfare social security.Binay Kumar. 5 days ago• Like1 Follow DHANUSKODI DHANUSKODI RENUGOPAL • This is the latest judgement form Bombay High Court Dismissing an appeal by an insurance company against an order by the Mumbai Commissioner for workmen’s compensation, the Bombay high court has laid down that the liability of an employee employed by a contractor is on the principal employer. The appeal was filed against the commissioner’s order to an auto manufacturing company asking it to pay monetary compensation to a worker who lost his life in an accident while transporting its vehicle. The appeal was against the order on the grounds that the employee was not directly employed by the company but hired by a contractor and hence the liability to pay the compensation was on the contractor. Justice A.H. Joshi was hearing the appeal filed by United Assurance Company Ltd, which challenged the awarding of compensation to the driver who was hired by MGM Motors. The Judge noted that this being an appeal under the Employees’ Compensation Act, the appellant has to substantiate the challenge on substantial questions of law. He directed the appellant’s advocate to pin-point and address the court on a substantial question of law asking whether a principal employer would be liable to pay compensation to a worker employed by a managing agency. The vehicle belonging to Mahindra & Mahindra was being transported by an MGM Motors driver Sureshkumar Parasnath Singh, when he died in an accident. The high court held that the liability towards an employee engaged by a contractor or a managing agent is on the principal employer. It was suggested that since the driver was engaged by MGM Motors, the appellant (United India Assurance) does not have the liability towards the payment of compensation. The high court, however, said that it is not proven that due to certain terms in the contract between the two sides, the liability of compensation was to be borne by MGM Motors. Irrespective of the terms, the employee concerned is seen to be entitled to receive the compensation, the judge remarked and dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in it. The ruling puts the onus of paying compensation on the principal employer for whom the contractor had hired the employee in the first place. 5 days ago• Like3 Follow piyali piyali das • Just wondering whether there is any checklist of any kind with the members wherein the Prncipal Employer can ensure compliance of Statutory laws by the Contarctor. If so kindly share. This way the Principal Employer can ensure that the Contractor is complying with all the laws that are applicable towards contracted manpower. 4 days ago• Like Follow Ashish Ashish Chaudhary • now these days contractors are ready to work on five percent commission with the organisations out of which they pay one percent tds and get only four percent margin out of which they have to meet out the business expenses. this clearly shows that the contractors must be giving the labourers. the only solution for this problem is that the govt. should laid down some guidlines with regard to the minimum commission to be paid to the labour contractors so that such malpractices may be reduced. 3 days ago• Like1 Follow Sanjay Sanjay Malik • @Ashish, there are lot other component which a contractor charge from the principal employer but it hardly goes to the workers, viz like in case of security and housekeeping sector the attrition ratio is very very high. a worker works for 2/3 days, he never turn back to get his such wages, which normally billed to PE , believe to be retain by contractor itself. In security agencies, most of agencies hired worker on fixed salary of Amount like 10K for 12 hrs duty. the worker work for 12 hrs but did not get any overtime for extra hrs, just only get the fixed amount. Though its not only the contractor problem, contractor shall also pay whatever authorized by PE itself, he is not going to a single penny from his pocket. so ultimately the extrotion of work force is only on instance of PE in most cases. 3 days ago• Like Follow Binay Binay Kumar • Dear all participants and H.R, Under amendment in law so many state restrict regular type of job for contractor and principal employer has never given lenience for contract work .Only company role employees( Workers) will be doing regular type of work. Only for occasional type of work if company like to transfer to contractor under contract Regulation and abolition act. Most of security agency has been doing work under contractor without action by Government. Always security agencies has been employed less personnel as actual required strength . They has been charge double rate of wage as overtime if calculate this has been higher if full strength of security personnel, deployed then rate is less and duty also right. Most of H.r and workers facing problem, under P.F& ESI act if casual worker work in factory only for one day then his wage has been deduct as per act but poor worker how en cash their deduction and how H,R will maintain these records Dear sanjoy you are absolute right.Binay Kumar. 2 days ago• Like Follow Sanjay Sanjay Malik • @Binay Kumar, there is no definition of perinial nature of work under CLRA Act, none of the state except Andhra Pradesh, has defined the permanent/or perinial nature of job. Only State of Andhra Pradesh has clearly mentioned under which category of work the contract labour can not be deployed. The Employers are getting benefit of none availability of this Definition under the Act. And even they are employing contract labour in core activities also, untill and unless there should not be any notification for prohibition and abolition by State or Centre Govt in such activities. 2 days ago• Like Follow Ajay Ajay Deshpande • I agree with all the comments by Mr. Sanjay Malik. Though every act in India is drafted as a welfare legislation in reality it ends up being a tool to avoid extra costs. Contract Labour is a very good example to study this scenario. @ Piyali yes there is a list of checklist in the act itself for principal employer to comply with. 1 day ago• Like Follow AA AA JOSE • Unfortunately, contrary to the avowed objectives of the Act, the Contract Labour...Act has turned to be a convenient instrument for exploiting contract labourers in India. Apart from that, the Act has opened up a safe avenue for indulging into corruption by the enforcement agencies in the name of welfare of the workmen. One does not need much prudence to understand the extent of exploition and corruption in the arena of contract labour but one has only to read some of the case laws on the subject. Most of the cases settlted by different High Courts as well as the Supreme Court pertain to Government controlled large public sector undertakings such as the SAIL, Gujarat Electricity Board, different refineries,etc., which only would show that under the shelfter of a so-called labour welfare legislation, Governments as well as large Corporations have been indulging into day light looting and exploitation of the poor workmen by denying their legitimate wages, leave, medical and other service related perquisites/benefits. Over and above, this Act has largely benefitted and promoted middlemen and touts in the field of contract labour who are equal partners for sharing and pocketing the legitimate dues of workmen and promoting corruption by Government agencies who are charged with the duty of enforcment of the Act ! I am of the personal view that it is high time for either total overhaul or repeal of the Act in question. However, I am afraid, different lobbyists may not allow this to happen. Perhaps, this Act has ensured welfare of middlemen,i.e.Contractor, Enforcement Agencies, big PSUs and their Officers, different Corporates and their owners ... but not that of the workmen/labourers.
Posted on: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 17:01:28 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015