Respected Sir, I want to know that in how many days of continuous working the daily wages labourers (casual labourers ) can be permanent .
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Please refer your Standing order where you have defined Catagory of employees with definition ie. Permanent, Casual, Badli worker, If no Standing Order Check Model Standing Order Act.
And different Act and rules has different -different Definition of Workman, refer each act
From India, Kolkata
1And different Act and rules has different -different Definition of Workman, refer each act
From India, Kolkata
Dear sir,
Permanency on which position? It all will be subject to strict proof that contract labour has been doing jobs which is regular in nature directly connected to manufacturing/ business .This means, a contract labour like others if he does not do assigned jobs, the manufacturing process will hault further more.A job of fitter doing shift duty in Assembly shop may he claim for permanency if doing since past so many years, but a taxi driver, a driver engaged by me (HR Head) and wages paid by me , he can not claim. A person engaged by a licensed contractor , can not claim permanent position just because he has worked in a company,it is very very difficult.We see day in and out today that Security, Guest house, canteen, Gardening, Travel and Transportation, Housekeeping and many more jobs such as CSR, Pay roll , colony maintenance etc have been outsourced in almost every organization.And almost Central/ state Govts . is continuing all its business like this only.
Regds,
RDS Yadav
Labour Law Adviser
From India, Delhi
Permanency on which position? It all will be subject to strict proof that contract labour has been doing jobs which is regular in nature directly connected to manufacturing/ business .This means, a contract labour like others if he does not do assigned jobs, the manufacturing process will hault further more.A job of fitter doing shift duty in Assembly shop may he claim for permanency if doing since past so many years, but a taxi driver, a driver engaged by me (HR Head) and wages paid by me , he can not claim. A person engaged by a licensed contractor , can not claim permanent position just because he has worked in a company,it is very very difficult.We see day in and out today that Security, Guest house, canteen, Gardening, Travel and Transportation, Housekeeping and many more jobs such as CSR, Pay roll , colony maintenance etc have been outsourced in almost every organization.And almost Central/ state Govts . is continuing all its business like this only.
Regds,
RDS Yadav
Labour Law Adviser
From India, Delhi
There is no such rules making casual labour eligible for permanent service.At the time of their appointment,their service conditions are defined or clearly spelt out in the letter of appointment. They are governed by Co's Standing orders or service rules. Company or concerned appointing authority takes in to consideration it's requirement and performance of the incumbents for making them permanent or otherwise. If someone or a group of such workmen become aggrieved,they can raise their grievance at an appropriate authority. They can also approach a Labour Court which often become a long drawn dispute. Thank you.
From India, Bokaro
From India, Bokaro
Dear Mukund,
I think that your question relates to the casual employment directly done by the employer without any intermediary like a contractor. So, I prefer to leave out the case of permanency of contract labour in my answer.
In the first place it is important to analyse the definition of casual employment. Even the Model Standing Orders finding place in the Schedule I of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,1946 simply defines a casual workman as a workman whose employment is of casual nature - that's all. Therefore, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the nature of the work for which a person is employed or engaged and the method of payment are the determinants in this regard. Here, nature of work is relative to the principal or main activity of the establishment or the employer. Every work which is incidental and required to be performed intermittantly alone can be a casual nature of work. Thus the absence of regularity of the work determines the method of payment for such workers on daily or hourly or piece-rate basis depending upon the convenience of monetary quantification of the work done by them. In other words, it is not the mode of payment i.e the periodicity in which wages are disbursed or simply put the wage period but in essence the method of payment.
Coming to the question of making the casual workmen as permanent workmen, I don't think that the Standing Orders of any establishment would be of much help for it would simply classify the workmen as permanent, probationer, badlis,temporary, casual and apprentices on the basis of the nature of their work or purpose of their engagement. Even, where some special enactment on the subject-matter of permanency of employment like the Tamilnadu Industrial Esatablishment ( Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen ) Act,1981 is in force, if I were correct, the term "permanent status" has not been defined.
My conclusion is, therefore, the nature of a particular work being a question of fact, the questions of making the casual workmen as permanent workmen of the establishment and the time frame within which it should be done can not be precisely answered.But one should remember that item no.10 of Part 1 of the Fifth Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 specifically states " to employ workmen as 'badlis', casuals or temporaries and continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen " is an act of unfair labour practice on the part of employers.
From India, Salem
I think that your question relates to the casual employment directly done by the employer without any intermediary like a contractor. So, I prefer to leave out the case of permanency of contract labour in my answer.
In the first place it is important to analyse the definition of casual employment. Even the Model Standing Orders finding place in the Schedule I of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,1946 simply defines a casual workman as a workman whose employment is of casual nature - that's all. Therefore, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the nature of the work for which a person is employed or engaged and the method of payment are the determinants in this regard. Here, nature of work is relative to the principal or main activity of the establishment or the employer. Every work which is incidental and required to be performed intermittantly alone can be a casual nature of work. Thus the absence of regularity of the work determines the method of payment for such workers on daily or hourly or piece-rate basis depending upon the convenience of monetary quantification of the work done by them. In other words, it is not the mode of payment i.e the periodicity in which wages are disbursed or simply put the wage period but in essence the method of payment.
Coming to the question of making the casual workmen as permanent workmen, I don't think that the Standing Orders of any establishment would be of much help for it would simply classify the workmen as permanent, probationer, badlis,temporary, casual and apprentices on the basis of the nature of their work or purpose of their engagement. Even, where some special enactment on the subject-matter of permanency of employment like the Tamilnadu Industrial Esatablishment ( Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen ) Act,1981 is in force, if I were correct, the term "permanent status" has not been defined.
My conclusion is, therefore, the nature of a particular work being a question of fact, the questions of making the casual workmen as permanent workmen of the establishment and the time frame within which it should be done can not be precisely answered.But one should remember that item no.10 of Part 1 of the Fifth Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 specifically states " to employ workmen as 'badlis', casuals or temporaries and continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen " is an act of unfair labour practice on the part of employers.
From India, Salem
Umakanthan.M,
Isnt there some court decisions stating that any worker who has worked more than 240 days in a year will be eligible to be made permanent, or at least that they cant be terminated just like that ?
I was always under the impression that they should not be allowed to work beyond 240 days in a year.
From India, Mumbai
Isnt there some court decisions stating that any worker who has worked more than 240 days in a year will be eligible to be made permanent, or at least that they cant be terminated just like that ?
I was always under the impression that they should not be allowed to work beyond 240 days in a year.
From India, Mumbai
Dear Saswata Banerjee,
Like I said earlier, permanency is a question of fact. The employer, if he so desires, can keep a temporary workman on a permanent job and depute a permanent workman on a temporary job in his industrial establishment depending up on exigencies of work. So, whatever the rationale behind any Judicial Decision regarding permanency on the ground of a workman's employment for more than 240 days, it might be the facts of the particular case such as the nature of the jobs, regularity of employment, disparity of service conditions enjoyed by permanent workmen doing the same works leading to such a conclusion. That's why I cited the clause of unfair labour practice in my previous post. If I were correct, the requirement of completion of 240 days service in a year under the same employer is propounded for determining " continuous service" as defined u/s 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 for the purposes of Lay-off and retrenchment of workmen.
Coming to the issue of permanency of casual workman, we should first delve deep into the meaning of casual work. Casual work is a short-term job in the nature of any incidental and intermittant activity. Therefore, the absence of regularity of employment would be a conspicuous feature of casual employment. When the work is over and the wages are paid, the contract of employment comes to an end. Even if such workman makes himself available for work again, the employer has no obligation to offer him employment again if any suitable work is not available. Similarly, the workman is at liberty to seek any alternative employment elsewhere and the employer can not compel his presence for work again. Therefore, a casual workman doing odd jobs intermittantly can not equate himself with a temporary workman doing the permanent nature of work or a permanent workman regularly appointed for any job in the same establishment and claim for permanency only on the ground of efflux of time like 240 days service in the establishment.
From India, Salem
Like I said earlier, permanency is a question of fact. The employer, if he so desires, can keep a temporary workman on a permanent job and depute a permanent workman on a temporary job in his industrial establishment depending up on exigencies of work. So, whatever the rationale behind any Judicial Decision regarding permanency on the ground of a workman's employment for more than 240 days, it might be the facts of the particular case such as the nature of the jobs, regularity of employment, disparity of service conditions enjoyed by permanent workmen doing the same works leading to such a conclusion. That's why I cited the clause of unfair labour practice in my previous post. If I were correct, the requirement of completion of 240 days service in a year under the same employer is propounded for determining " continuous service" as defined u/s 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 for the purposes of Lay-off and retrenchment of workmen.
Coming to the issue of permanency of casual workman, we should first delve deep into the meaning of casual work. Casual work is a short-term job in the nature of any incidental and intermittant activity. Therefore, the absence of regularity of employment would be a conspicuous feature of casual employment. When the work is over and the wages are paid, the contract of employment comes to an end. Even if such workman makes himself available for work again, the employer has no obligation to offer him employment again if any suitable work is not available. Similarly, the workman is at liberty to seek any alternative employment elsewhere and the employer can not compel his presence for work again. Therefore, a casual workman doing odd jobs intermittantly can not equate himself with a temporary workman doing the permanent nature of work or a permanent workman regularly appointed for any job in the same establishment and claim for permanency only on the ground of efflux of time like 240 days service in the establishment.
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.
World Health days.doc
Circular Dated 28-10-2016 for settlement of PF Death Case Claims within 7 days.pdf