Is the break necessary for the employee who are working on the contract in bank. If yes how many days? Seniors please advice.
Dear Vrushali,
Outsourced and regular employees are to be treated on par with each other. As far as statutory provisions are concerned, both are on equal footing. No discrimination is allowed.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
7884Outsourced and regular employees are to be treated on par with each other. As far as statutory provisions are concerned, both are on equal footing. No discrimination is allowed.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Dear Vrushali,
Normally, the requirement of engaging employees on direct contract basis would arise only to fill the vacancy, if any caused by the sudden exit or substantially long leave by regular employee during which the post cannot be filled by another regular employee or in case of some adhoc or special or incidental nature of works to be accomplished within a particular time duration. Therefore, there is no necessity of granting any break artificially.
The services of clerks and sub-staff are quite essential and thus inevitable for the core activities of a bank. If you fill such vacancies with direct contract labor or outsourced indirect labor indefinitely, certainly such contracts become sham. Only then you rack up your brains to grant some periodical breaks so as to defeat any claim for regularisation later.
As these cadre of employees fall under the category of "workman" as defined u/s 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 such an attempt by the bank would tantamount to unfair labor practice under the Act. Besides, how long such a preemptive break could be at the maximum in a period of 12 calendar months? Once such a direct contract employee completes 240 days of service in the preceding 12 months which includes holidays, authorised leave, any period of non-employment not due to the fault of the concerned employee, he is deemed to have completed a continuous service as per section 25-B of the IDA, 1947 and entitled to all the benefits on par with the regular employees doing the same or similar works.
Therefore, try to be fair with the contract, the employee and the law of the land.
From India, Salem
Normally, the requirement of engaging employees on direct contract basis would arise only to fill the vacancy, if any caused by the sudden exit or substantially long leave by regular employee during which the post cannot be filled by another regular employee or in case of some adhoc or special or incidental nature of works to be accomplished within a particular time duration. Therefore, there is no necessity of granting any break artificially.
The services of clerks and sub-staff are quite essential and thus inevitable for the core activities of a bank. If you fill such vacancies with direct contract labor or outsourced indirect labor indefinitely, certainly such contracts become sham. Only then you rack up your brains to grant some periodical breaks so as to defeat any claim for regularisation later.
As these cadre of employees fall under the category of "workman" as defined u/s 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 such an attempt by the bank would tantamount to unfair labor practice under the Act. Besides, how long such a preemptive break could be at the maximum in a period of 12 calendar months? Once such a direct contract employee completes 240 days of service in the preceding 12 months which includes holidays, authorised leave, any period of non-employment not due to the fault of the concerned employee, he is deemed to have completed a continuous service as per section 25-B of the IDA, 1947 and entitled to all the benefits on par with the regular employees doing the same or similar works.
Therefore, try to be fair with the contract, the employee and the law of the land.
From India, Salem
Giving an artificial break is widely practised in government sector for the ostensible purpose of avoiding regularisation. In industries also there is a notion giving an artificial break for a few days on the mistaken notion that continuous service of 240 days and more would render the employee regular status. But the provision of law is that it is 240 days service in any continuous period of 12 months. So an artificial break of a few days here and there won't matter so long as it completes 240 days. But the idea of artificial break has lost its relevance as the termination of service following a stipulation to that effect in the contract of employment does not come within the mischief of 'retrenchment' as per the amended ID Act 1947 {Section 2 (00) (bb)}. So where the staff is appointed for a fixed period and is relieved on the last date can be again given contract appointment from the next date.
However, such short term appointments for regular nature of employment is a despicable practice.
From India, Mumbai
However, such short term appointments for regular nature of employment is a despicable practice.
From India, Mumbai
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.
Break.zip
Salary Break Up.xlsx