Dear Koragaonkar ji
I agree with you and appreciate your discerning objectivity in distinguishing and pointing out the two situations.
In case of out-workers under Sec.2 (1)(c) of the CL(R&A) Act 1970, (a person to whom any articles and materials are given out by or on behalf of the principal employer to be made up, cleaned, washed, altered, ornamented, finished, repaired, adapted or otherwise processed for sale for the purposes of the trade or business of the principal employer and the process is to be carried out either in the home of the out-worker or in some other premises, not being premises under the control and management of the principal employer.); they are not covered.
It may be noted that these are the work or processes related to or "for the purposes of the trade or business of the principal employer" and can be carried out either in the home of the out-worker or in some other premises, not being premises under the control and management of the principal employer.
Just the fact, that "some other premises" is mentioned should not lead us to jump to a fixed conclusion. The nature of the above work related to "öut-worker" is entirely different. The purpose or the nature of work being performed, also has to be seen together with the "premises"
By no stretch of imagination; a CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WORK, assigned to a Civil Contractor of the company, through a Work Order, escape the scope of the CLAR Act, just because it is being CARRIED OUT IN PREMISES OUTSIDE THE COMPANY.
If this be the logic, then ALL INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANIES, carrying out the construction of Roads and Highways; Bridges; Townships, Real Estate, Hospitals etc. will escape from being covered under the CL(A&R) Act; because they are working either through their contractors/sub-contractors; in PREMISES OUTSIDE THEOR COMPANY OR CONTROL !!!! We all know this argument prima facie appears ridiculous.
Thus it stands to reason that a Company intending to do a job of Civil nature, namely construction of a School building; through a Work Order in favour of a Contractor; irrespective of of the purpose of work - whether for CSR or Employee Welfare or for Profit; shall be covered under the provisions of the said Act.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
1425I agree with you and appreciate your discerning objectivity in distinguishing and pointing out the two situations.
In case of out-workers under Sec.2 (1)(c) of the CL(R&A) Act 1970, (a person to whom any articles and materials are given out by or on behalf of the principal employer to be made up, cleaned, washed, altered, ornamented, finished, repaired, adapted or otherwise processed for sale for the purposes of the trade or business of the principal employer and the process is to be carried out either in the home of the out-worker or in some other premises, not being premises under the control and management of the principal employer.); they are not covered.
It may be noted that these are the work or processes related to or "for the purposes of the trade or business of the principal employer" and can be carried out either in the home of the out-worker or in some other premises, not being premises under the control and management of the principal employer.
Just the fact, that "some other premises" is mentioned should not lead us to jump to a fixed conclusion. The nature of the above work related to "öut-worker" is entirely different. The purpose or the nature of work being performed, also has to be seen together with the "premises"
By no stretch of imagination; a CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WORK, assigned to a Civil Contractor of the company, through a Work Order, escape the scope of the CLAR Act, just because it is being CARRIED OUT IN PREMISES OUTSIDE THE COMPANY.
If this be the logic, then ALL INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANIES, carrying out the construction of Roads and Highways; Bridges; Townships, Real Estate, Hospitals etc. will escape from being covered under the CL(A&R) Act; because they are working either through their contractors/sub-contractors; in PREMISES OUTSIDE THEOR COMPANY OR CONTROL !!!! We all know this argument prima facie appears ridiculous.
Thus it stands to reason that a Company intending to do a job of Civil nature, namely construction of a School building; through a Work Order in favour of a Contractor; irrespective of of the purpose of work - whether for CSR or Employee Welfare or for Profit; shall be covered under the provisions of the said Act.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Dear Mr. Saswata Banerjee,
Can you please give a reference to a court judgement which says that "If the work is done outside the premises under control of the principal employer, it does not come under the contract labour act and the compliances required are not applicable."
regards,
Kamal
From India, Pune
Can you please give a reference to a court judgement which says that "If the work is done outside the premises under control of the principal employer, it does not come under the contract labour act and the compliances required are not applicable."
regards,
Kamal
From India, Pune
Give me a day, will get a copy for you I need to ask someone in office to search it out
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Dear seniors
The thread has really gathered good inputs.
From all posts it seems that there is no difference of opinion about obligation of the company (principal employer) to comply with CLRA and all other relevant acts where company has directly issued work order to the contractor.
But ...the unrevealed query really is PRACTICALLY IT IS NECESSARY ???
There are different routes adapted by company for CSR like directly undertaking welfare/developmental work, through an NGO sponsored by company or just giving the financial aids to the body/institute to whom they want to extend the help.
For time bound CIVIL work if you see practically ...there is huge labour turnover, labours are migrants and keep changing the contractors.
The company which spends huge amount towards CSR might definitely have no intention to make any malpractice by not complying with the law.
But effectually who will gain in such typical type of labours and contract (the money PE deposits to govt.) ??
Better ensure payment of fair wages and good and safe working conditions for such labours BY NOT ISSUING WORK ORDER ON BEHALF OF COMANY BUT GEETING DONE IT THROUGH AN NGO OR ANOTHER BODY OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT KIND..AND AVOID AVOIDABLE ..OBLIGATION..WHEN YOUR INTENTION ARE NOT MALICE AND YOU ARE NOT STEALING FROM THE PORTION OF THE LABOURS. MAY ENSURE THEY ARE INSURED AND THEIR PORTION OF PF IS ALSO COMPENSATED SOME OR OTHER WAY BY THE CONTRACTOR. (since the contractor is finally going to claim from the company).
Regards
Shailesh Parikh
Vadodara, Gujarat
99 98 97 10 65
From India, Mumbai
The thread has really gathered good inputs.
From all posts it seems that there is no difference of opinion about obligation of the company (principal employer) to comply with CLRA and all other relevant acts where company has directly issued work order to the contractor.
But ...the unrevealed query really is PRACTICALLY IT IS NECESSARY ???
There are different routes adapted by company for CSR like directly undertaking welfare/developmental work, through an NGO sponsored by company or just giving the financial aids to the body/institute to whom they want to extend the help.
For time bound CIVIL work if you see practically ...there is huge labour turnover, labours are migrants and keep changing the contractors.
The company which spends huge amount towards CSR might definitely have no intention to make any malpractice by not complying with the law.
But effectually who will gain in such typical type of labours and contract (the money PE deposits to govt.) ??
Better ensure payment of fair wages and good and safe working conditions for such labours BY NOT ISSUING WORK ORDER ON BEHALF OF COMANY BUT GEETING DONE IT THROUGH AN NGO OR ANOTHER BODY OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT KIND..AND AVOID AVOIDABLE ..OBLIGATION..WHEN YOUR INTENTION ARE NOT MALICE AND YOU ARE NOT STEALING FROM THE PORTION OF THE LABOURS. MAY ENSURE THEY ARE INSURED AND THEIR PORTION OF PF IS ALSO COMPENSATED SOME OR OTHER WAY BY THE CONTRACTOR. (since the contractor is finally going to claim from the company).
Regards
Shailesh Parikh
Vadodara, Gujarat
99 98 97 10 65
From India, Mumbai
DEAR FRIENDS ACTIVELY CONTRIBUTING TO THIS DISCUSSION,
I am afraid whether the thread started by D.G is turning into a hotch-potch because of the protracted arguments and counter arguments. The questions posed by D.G are very simple ones in totality --- When a business enterprise undertakes a project totally unrelated to its normal business activity in terms of the project's nature and place of execution under its scheme of C.S.R, is it bound to observe the Labour Laws if any, applicable? To me, the answer is 'YES'. Simply donating the money to the beneficiary to carry out the task himself is a different thing.But, as a benefactor, obviously to ensure proper utilisation of the funds donated and effective and timely execution of the work, when the benefactor/business enterprise directly executes the project by engaging a contractor depending upon its scale or size, it automatically assumes the legal responsibility to comply with the provisions of Labour Laws, if any applicable. But to what extent depends upon the deed of contract to be made in this regard I suppose.May be it is a tripartite contract involving the benefactor, beneficiary and the contractor.Since the beneficiary being an educational institution, it is an industry and as such whether the B.O.C.W Act or C.L.R.A Act or the E.C Act whatever it is, the project is bound by the applicable labour legislation -- that's my humble submission.
From India, Salem
I am afraid whether the thread started by D.G is turning into a hotch-potch because of the protracted arguments and counter arguments. The questions posed by D.G are very simple ones in totality --- When a business enterprise undertakes a project totally unrelated to its normal business activity in terms of the project's nature and place of execution under its scheme of C.S.R, is it bound to observe the Labour Laws if any, applicable? To me, the answer is 'YES'. Simply donating the money to the beneficiary to carry out the task himself is a different thing.But, as a benefactor, obviously to ensure proper utilisation of the funds donated and effective and timely execution of the work, when the benefactor/business enterprise directly executes the project by engaging a contractor depending upon its scale or size, it automatically assumes the legal responsibility to comply with the provisions of Labour Laws, if any applicable. But to what extent depends upon the deed of contract to be made in this regard I suppose.May be it is a tripartite contract involving the benefactor, beneficiary and the contractor.Since the beneficiary being an educational institution, it is an industry and as such whether the B.O.C.W Act or C.L.R.A Act or the E.C Act whatever it is, the project is bound by the applicable labour legislation -- that's my humble submission.
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.
Amended Labor Laws.doc
Labor Laws Modified.pdf