how can I understand that the job is not perennial in nature or not necessary or incidental for the occupation or business under sec 10 of CLRA Act 1970?
Is there anywhere anything mentioned about jobs where I can not engage contract labour?
in a dispute situation, management has agreed to take the contract labour after the end of the agreement. To make this agreement management takes 15-20 days. for this 1st 15 to 20 days contract labours are working in the factory, not under the contractor. they are working as they are forcing us to take.
Is it will be a sham contract?? in that case are they working under the principal employer?
If they work for 15-20 days under the principal employer then can they demand for the absorption under the principal employer?
is there any limit in no. of days working under a principal employer or working perennial nature job, so that management has to absorb them?
Please reply urgently.
From India, Kolkata
4Is there anywhere anything mentioned about jobs where I can not engage contract labour?
in a dispute situation, management has agreed to take the contract labour after the end of the agreement. To make this agreement management takes 15-20 days. for this 1st 15 to 20 days contract labours are working in the factory, not under the contractor. they are working as they are forcing us to take.
Is it will be a sham contract?? in that case are they working under the principal employer?
If they work for 15-20 days under the principal employer then can they demand for the absorption under the principal employer?
is there any limit in no. of days working under a principal employer or working perennial nature job, so that management has to absorb them?
Please reply urgently.
From India, Kolkata
Dear Sakshar,
This is in continuation of the thread posted by you on 6th Aug.2014 I think. Each and every industrial dispute is unique and only the wearer knows where the shoe pinches exactly.Honestly if you are for the most appropriate suggestion for the problem you are actually facing, volley of questions in instalments after implementing your suo moto decisions should be avoided. On the other hand, had all the details relating to the operations of the establishment and the issues been specifically presented in a single thread, it would enable others to view the issues in totality and offer their remarks more specifically rather than as mere generalisations.
From India, Salem
This is in continuation of the thread posted by you on 6th Aug.2014 I think. Each and every industrial dispute is unique and only the wearer knows where the shoe pinches exactly.Honestly if you are for the most appropriate suggestion for the problem you are actually facing, volley of questions in instalments after implementing your suo moto decisions should be avoided. On the other hand, had all the details relating to the operations of the establishment and the issues been specifically presented in a single thread, it would enable others to view the issues in totality and offer their remarks more specifically rather than as mere generalisations.
From India, Salem
Dear Sakshar,
With reference to your query, pl note the following.
Andhra Pradesh Contract Labour Act 2003 Amendment
The State amendment of Andhra Pradesh in 2003 which introduced a clause restraining the employment of Contract Labour in core activities of any establishment if the same was prohibited by Notification .But it introduced the following exemptions.
[a]. The normal functioning of the establishments is such that the activity is ordinarily done through contractors; or
[b]. The activities are such that they do not require full time workers for the major portion of the working hours in a day or for longer periods, as the case may be;
[c] Any sudden increase of volume of work in the core activity which needs to be accomplished in a specified time\"
Also the Andhra Pradesh Amendment introduced a definition clause for \"core activities\" of an establishment meaning as any activity for which establishment is set up which includes any activity which is essential or necessary to the core activity and it again provides certain exceptions which are follows:-
1]. Sanitation works, including sweeping, cleaning, dusting and collection and disposal of all kinds of waste;
2].Watch and ward services including security service;
3]. Canteen and catering services;
4]. Loading and unloading operations;
5]. Running of hospitals, educational and training institutions, guest houses, clubs and the like where they are in the nature of support services of an establishment;
6]. Courier services which are in nature of support services of an establishment;
7]. Civil and other constructional works, including maintenance;
8]. Gardening and maintenance of lawns, etc;
9]. Housekeeping and laundry services, etc., where they are in nature
support services of an establishment;
10]. Transport services including ambulance services;
11]. Any activity of intermittent in nature even if that constitutes a
core activity of an establishment; and
12]. Any other activity which is incidental to the core activity.
Also a rider was introduced by the Andhra Pradesh Amendment that the above 12 activities by themselves should not be the core activities of such establishment.
Thanks & Regards,
V R RAO PULIPAKA
From India, Hyderabad
With reference to your query, pl note the following.
Andhra Pradesh Contract Labour Act 2003 Amendment
The State amendment of Andhra Pradesh in 2003 which introduced a clause restraining the employment of Contract Labour in core activities of any establishment if the same was prohibited by Notification .But it introduced the following exemptions.
[a]. The normal functioning of the establishments is such that the activity is ordinarily done through contractors; or
[b]. The activities are such that they do not require full time workers for the major portion of the working hours in a day or for longer periods, as the case may be;
[c] Any sudden increase of volume of work in the core activity which needs to be accomplished in a specified time\"
Also the Andhra Pradesh Amendment introduced a definition clause for \"core activities\" of an establishment meaning as any activity for which establishment is set up which includes any activity which is essential or necessary to the core activity and it again provides certain exceptions which are follows:-
1]. Sanitation works, including sweeping, cleaning, dusting and collection and disposal of all kinds of waste;
2].Watch and ward services including security service;
3]. Canteen and catering services;
4]. Loading and unloading operations;
5]. Running of hospitals, educational and training institutions, guest houses, clubs and the like where they are in the nature of support services of an establishment;
6]. Courier services which are in nature of support services of an establishment;
7]. Civil and other constructional works, including maintenance;
8]. Gardening and maintenance of lawns, etc;
9]. Housekeeping and laundry services, etc., where they are in nature
support services of an establishment;
10]. Transport services including ambulance services;
11]. Any activity of intermittent in nature even if that constitutes a
core activity of an establishment; and
12]. Any other activity which is incidental to the core activity.
Also a rider was introduced by the Andhra Pradesh Amendment that the above 12 activities by themselves should not be the core activities of such establishment.
Thanks & Regards,
V R RAO PULIPAKA
From India, Hyderabad
Yes...sir,
there are two issues raised...
1. The workers previously worked are really worked under principal employer? Or not.?
Yes they worked under principal employer wherever contractor is not existed.for that little period. Ok.
2. No question of regularising their services though they directly
worked under the umbrella of the principal employer for that short period.
. Previously
there was a clause if the worker directly works 180 days of continuous service there is possibility of
regularisation when the vacancies araised.now apsrtc and electricity
employees are working years together still on contract removed .before 180 days. And re appointment. Again going duties. So
regularisation of contract labour by the principal employer is a policy decision taken by govt. Only. When ever it likes..................
And moreover the new contractor has every right to take anyone of his
own recruitment. But generally already working people can be
obsorbed by the new contractor on humanitarian grounds and on the
basis of their quality. None can stop from doing so. But take precaution
by giving fresh appointment but not continuation of previous service
with the principal employer
all the best sir
From India, Nellore
there are two issues raised...
1. The workers previously worked are really worked under principal employer? Or not.?
Yes they worked under principal employer wherever contractor is not existed.for that little period. Ok.
2. No question of regularising their services though they directly
worked under the umbrella of the principal employer for that short period.
. Previously
there was a clause if the worker directly works 180 days of continuous service there is possibility of
regularisation when the vacancies araised.now apsrtc and electricity
employees are working years together still on contract removed .before 180 days. And re appointment. Again going duties. So
regularisation of contract labour by the principal employer is a policy decision taken by govt. Only. When ever it likes..................
And moreover the new contractor has every right to take anyone of his
own recruitment. But generally already working people can be
obsorbed by the new contractor on humanitarian grounds and on the
basis of their quality. None can stop from doing so. But take precaution
by giving fresh appointment but not continuation of previous service
with the principal employer
all the best sir
From India, Nellore
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.
Contract Labour Act.zip
SELF-CERTIFICAT E PROFORMA UNNDER CONTRACT LABOUR (R&A) ACT, 1970.doc