Dear Seniors,
An agreement has been entered into between A&B which B has subcontracted to C. My query is that if C takes License under CLRA who will be the principal employer ie A or B.
if we make A as principal employer, C does not have a contract with A, how can A be dragged into the scene and what will be the position of B then?
If we make B as principal employer then B will have to get itself registered under CLRA as Principal Employer but technically B is not a principal employer and does not have the authority.
please let me know the solutions with explanation. In case Labour authority has issued any guidelines/notification, will be greatful if the same is shared with me.
thanks in anticipation.
From India, Chandigarh
5An agreement has been entered into between A&B which B has subcontracted to C. My query is that if C takes License under CLRA who will be the principal employer ie A or B.
if we make A as principal employer, C does not have a contract with A, how can A be dragged into the scene and what will be the position of B then?
If we make B as principal employer then B will have to get itself registered under CLRA as Principal Employer but technically B is not a principal employer and does not have the authority.
please let me know the solutions with explanation. In case Labour authority has issued any guidelines/notification, will be greatful if the same is shared with me.
thanks in anticipation.
From India, Chandigarh
Hi,
As per the C.L.(R&A) Act, 1970 the definition of "Contractor" is - Contractor, in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor.
So PE will be the same and one only. AS per your example only A will be the PE and he has to issue Form V to B & C.
Hope I am able to clear your confusion.
Thanks.
From India, Bhubaneswar
As per the C.L.(R&A) Act, 1970 the definition of "Contractor" is - Contractor, in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor.
So PE will be the same and one only. AS per your example only A will be the PE and he has to issue Form V to B & C.
Hope I am able to clear your confusion.
Thanks.
From India, Bhubaneswar
hi
thanks for your revert but the question still looms large as to who will take the license under CLRA. will it be B or C and which contractor will show the personnel deputed as their employee, whether it will be B or C
please revert, thanks!
From India, Chandigarh
thanks for your revert but the question still looms large as to who will take the license under CLRA. will it be B or C and which contractor will show the personnel deputed as their employee, whether it will be B or C
please revert, thanks!
From India, Chandigarh
You seem to be confused. A is PE. If there is no other contractor under A & if manpower of B exceeds 20, then A has to register itself as PE under CL Act and later issue Form V to B to enable it to apply for needed license. What B does with C has no bearing on this, unless A also has agreement with C.
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Dear Destinywins,
You may go through below given link and come to your own inference to the subject matter.
https://www.citehr.com/430531-info-c...#ixzz27UXXEXJL
From India, Mumbai
You may go through below given link and come to your own inference to the subject matter.
https://www.citehr.com/430531-info-c...#ixzz27UXXEXJL
From India, Mumbai
All my dear friends responding to the current thread,
The implication of the question so far as I am able to understand is two-fold: (1) In the absence of any contract between A the contractee and C the sub-contractor engaged by B the contractor of A, How could A become the Principal Employer to C, instead of B? and (2) If A is the Principal Employer, who is the immediate employer of the contract labour for all practical purposes, whether B the original contractor or C the sub-contractor?
The practice of contract labour is, in the first place, sought to be regulated under the Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition ) Act,1970 through registration of the establishment wherein labour are engaged for certain specific activities through contractors and licencing of the contractors. So, it is highly imperative that one should understand and interpret certain terms used in this Act in the contextual back ground of the objectives of the Act.
Interestingly, when any work divisible into different and distinct componential activities is carried out through contract labour, sub-contracting of such activities becomes inevitable thereby creating two distinct contracts as per the Contract Act - one between the principal employer and the contractor and the other between the contractor and the sub-contractor. However, the term " Principal Employer" is used in this Act only in relation to the contract labour whose conditions of service have to be regulated just in contra-distinction of his immediacy of employment by the contractor. Moreover,the definition of " contract labour" u/s 2(b) presupposes his engagement through the contractor with or without the knowledge of the principal employer. Therefore, one can not be both the principal employer and the contractor as well. So, A alone is the principal employer to all the workmen engaged through both the contractor B and sub-contactor C.
The questions raised by Destinywins in his/her last post are of wider import and hence require deeper analysis of the aspect of licencing of contractors under the Act in general as an academic exercise and the conditions stipulated in the Rules in particular as a matter of practical importance. As stated earlier registration of principal employer and licensing of contractors under the Act are the two broader and basic regulatory measures employed by this special Statute. Registration is a must for employing contract labour and the failure is visited with penal action. The licence granted to a contractor is name-specific in respect of the contractor, work-and-time specific in respect of the contract and number-specific in respect of the contract labour likely to be engaged. In other words, the licence is non-transferable as mentioned in the Rules. Hence, not-withstanding the fact that the contractor has a valid licence for the work, if it is sub-contracted, the sub-contractor should also take up a separate licence in the event of employing 20 or more number of workmen.
From India, Salem
The implication of the question so far as I am able to understand is two-fold: (1) In the absence of any contract between A the contractee and C the sub-contractor engaged by B the contractor of A, How could A become the Principal Employer to C, instead of B? and (2) If A is the Principal Employer, who is the immediate employer of the contract labour for all practical purposes, whether B the original contractor or C the sub-contractor?
The practice of contract labour is, in the first place, sought to be regulated under the Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition ) Act,1970 through registration of the establishment wherein labour are engaged for certain specific activities through contractors and licencing of the contractors. So, it is highly imperative that one should understand and interpret certain terms used in this Act in the contextual back ground of the objectives of the Act.
Interestingly, when any work divisible into different and distinct componential activities is carried out through contract labour, sub-contracting of such activities becomes inevitable thereby creating two distinct contracts as per the Contract Act - one between the principal employer and the contractor and the other between the contractor and the sub-contractor. However, the term " Principal Employer" is used in this Act only in relation to the contract labour whose conditions of service have to be regulated just in contra-distinction of his immediacy of employment by the contractor. Moreover,the definition of " contract labour" u/s 2(b) presupposes his engagement through the contractor with or without the knowledge of the principal employer. Therefore, one can not be both the principal employer and the contractor as well. So, A alone is the principal employer to all the workmen engaged through both the contractor B and sub-contactor C.
The questions raised by Destinywins in his/her last post are of wider import and hence require deeper analysis of the aspect of licencing of contractors under the Act in general as an academic exercise and the conditions stipulated in the Rules in particular as a matter of practical importance. As stated earlier registration of principal employer and licensing of contractors under the Act are the two broader and basic regulatory measures employed by this special Statute. Registration is a must for employing contract labour and the failure is visited with penal action. The licence granted to a contractor is name-specific in respect of the contractor, work-and-time specific in respect of the contract and number-specific in respect of the contract labour likely to be engaged. In other words, the licence is non-transferable as mentioned in the Rules. Hence, not-withstanding the fact that the contractor has a valid licence for the work, if it is sub-contracted, the sub-contractor should also take up a separate licence in the event of employing 20 or more number of workmen.
From India, Salem
Find answers from people who have previously dealt with business and work issues similar to yours - Please Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query.
Contract employee & Principal employer 2017.pdf
NOTE ON PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER TO ENGAGE CONTRACT LABOUR.pptx