Allan R.

A Lakra
Manager (P&IR)
CCL HQ
 WHAT IS “ESTABLISHMENT”
ESTABLISHMENT IS “ANY PLACE WHERE INDUSTRY, TRADE,
BUSINESS, MANUFACTURE OR OCCUPATION IS CARRIED ON” –
Section 2(1)(e)(ii).

E S T A B L I S H M E N T
E E
S S
T T
A A
B B
L L
I I
S S
H H
M M
E E
N N
T T
E S T A B L I S H M E N T
REMEMBER! “ESTABLISHMENT” IS A “PLACE” – NOT AN ORGANIZATION. HENCE THE
FOLLOWING 5 PLACES ARE ESTABLISHMENTS AND NEED SEPARATE CERTIFICATES OF
REGISTRATION. “CONTRACTOR” IS IN RELATION TO AN ESTABLISHMENT. HENCE, HE
REQUIRES A LICENCE SEPARATELY FOR EACH ESTABLISHMENT

35 18 100 23 20
CCL HQ, JAWAHAR NAGAR MAGADH OCP, M-S RLY SIDING, RAJRAPPA
DARBHANGA COLONY, CCL AREA, CCL SAUNDA, BARKA WAHSERY,
HOUSE, RANCHI SAYAL AREA, CCL RAPRAPPA AREA,
CCL

REGISTRATION NOT REGISTRATION REGISTRATION REGISTRATION

REGISTRATION
REQUIRED REQUIRED REQUIRED REQUIRED
REQUIRED

CONTRACTOR ‘A’ CONTRACTOR ‘A’ CONTRACTOR ‘A’ CONTRACTOR ‘A’ CONTRACTOR ‘A’

10 10 15 23 7
LICENCE  LICENCE  LICENCE  LICENCE  LICENCE 

CONTRACTOR ‘B’ CONTRACTOR ‘C’ CONTRACTOR ‘E’ CONTRACTOR ‘G’

10 5 48 7
(1ST CONTRACT) LICENCE  LICENCE  LICENCE 
LICENCE NOT YET 
CONTRACTOR ‘D’ CONTRACTOR ‘F’
CONTRACTOR ‘H’
CONTRACTOR ‘B’
3 37 6
15 LICENCE  LICENCE 
LICENCE 
(2ND CONTRACT)
LICENCE 
 WHAT IS “PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER” - Section 2(1)(g)
FACTORY OR MINE: The person named as “manager” under
the Factories Act/Mines Act – otherwise the Occupier/Agent.
GOVT. DEPARTMENT: The Head of Office/Department.
IF NOT FACTORY/MINE/GOVT. DEPARTMENT: Any person
responsible for supervision and control of the establishment.
E E
S S
T T
A A
B B
L L
I I
S PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER S
H H
M M
E E
N E S T A B L I S H M E N T N
T T
 Definition of “Contractor” under
section 2(1)(c) of CL (R&A) Act, 1970

“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;
WHAT IS A “CONTRACTOR” ? - Section 2(1)(c)
ESTABLISHMENT
P.E.

BOILER, TG, COOLING TOWER, COAL INSTRUMENTATION, SWITCHGEAR,

HANDLING, CHIMNEY, STEEL WORKS TRANSFORMER, AC, ELECTRICAL WORKS

BHEL ABB
RE 50 CL 3 RE 60 CL 4

PAHARPUR A B B SIEMENS
RE 10 CL 4 CL 19 CL 7 CL 8 RE 58 CL 8

L&T C B G H VOLTAS
RE 60 CL 10 CL 27 CL 6 CL 118 CL 19 RE 5 CL 6

HCCL D E F D
BAJAJ F BAJAJ
RE 40 CL 8 CL 7 CL 8 CL 12
CL 14 RE 10 CL 18
 PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL RELATIONSHIP
CONTRACT LABOUR (REGULATION & ABOLITION) ACT, 1970
– SEC. 24 – PROSECUTION FOR NOT TAKING LICENCE –
CONVICTION, WHETHER CAN BE SUSTAINED

BASANT KUMAR MOHANTY (DIRECTOR INCHARGE OF SECURITY AND

DETECTIVE SERVICES (I) LTD. vs. STATE OF ORISSA (1992) 2 LLJ 190 (ORI.)
MR. JUSTICE A. PASAYAT:
“A WORKMAN SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED AS
CONTRACT LABOUR WHEN HE IS HIRED IN OR IN CONNECTION WITH A
PARTICULAR WORK OF THE PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER. THE DETERMINITIVE
FACTOR, THEREFORE, IS WHETHER A WORKMAN WAS HIRED IN OR IN
CONNECTION WITH WORK OF AN ESTABLISHMENT. A PERMANENT
EMPLOYEE WHO DURING HIS EMPLOYMENT CAN BE PLACED AT
DIFFERENT ESTABLISHMENTS AT THE CHOICE OF THE CONTRACTOR
CANNOT BE CALLED TO BE A CONTRACT LABOUR BECAUSE HE IS NOT
HIRED IN OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE WORK OF ANY PARTICULAR
ESTABLISHMENT. THE LOGIC BEHIND THIS CONCLUSION IS THAT
WHERE EMPLOYMENT OF A PERSON IS UNRELATED WITH ANY SPECIFIC
WORK OF ANY ESTABLISHMENT, HE IS NOT A CONTRACT LABOUR,
BECAUSE HIS EMPLOYMENT HAS NO NEXUS WITH ANY PARTICULAR
WORK OF ANY ESTABLISHMENT.”
 PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL RELATIONSHIP
CONTRACT LABOUR (REGULATION & ABOLITION) ACT, 1970
– SEC. 24 – PROSECUTION FOR NOT TAKING LICENCE –
CONVICTION, WHETHER CAN BE SUSTAINED
BASANT KUMAR MOHANTY (DIRECTOR INCHARGE OF SECURITY AND
DETECTIVE SERVICES (I) LTD. vs. STATE OF ORISSA (1992) 2 LLJ 190 (ORI.)
MR. JUSTICE A. PASAYAT (contd.):
“FROM A BARE LOOK AT THE APPOINTMENT ORDER, IT IS APPARENT
THAT THE ENGAGEMENT WAS NOT IN OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY
WORK OF ANY PARTICULAR ESTABLISHMENT. MERELY BECAUSE A
CONTRACTOR UNDERTAKES TO RENDER ANY PARTICULAR SERVICE
AND ENGAGES ITS EMPLOYEES, IT DOES NOT IPSO FACTO LEAD TO
ENGAGEMENT OF CONTRACT LABOUR, UNLESS PERSONS WHO ARE
ENGAGED WERE HIRED FOR ANY PARTICULAR JOB. THAT IS THE
DISTINCTIVE FEATURE.”

“IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DEFINITE MATERIAL THAT THE

EMPLOYMENT OF ALL OR ANY OF THE EMPLOYEES WAS FOR WORK IN
OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER’S ESTABLISHMENT,
THE CONVICTION CANNOT BE MAINTAINED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE
SENTENCE AWARDED IS NULLIFIED. THE REVISION APPLICATION IS
ALLOWED.”
 PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL RELATIONSHIP
2012 LLR 22 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Hon’ble Mr. M.L. Mehta, J.
W.P. (C) No. 4408/2000 and 4433/2000, D/-20-09-2011
Group 4 Securitas Guarding Ltd. & Another vs. Employees’
Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal & Ors.
In this case, Group 4 Securitas Guarding Ltd (GSGL) provides
security services to various firms including M/S Havel (I) Ltd. and
M/S Whirlpool of India Ltd. Employees deputed to provide service
are under the ultimate control of M/S GSGL. The employees are
deputed in the establishment of the clients on rotation and transfer
basis depending upon requirement and exigency of services
related to its clients. The clients have no disciplinary control over
the personnel of GSGL. They received their wages and
appointment letters from GSGL. Thus, clients M/S Havel (I) Ltd.
and M/S Whirlpool of India Ltd. cannot be termed as Principal
Employers in respect of those security guards. The High Court held
that the services being provided by GSGL to Havels (I) Ltd. or
Whirlpool of India Ltd are on principal to principal basis and GSGL
is not to be treated as a contractor.
Contd…
 PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL RELATIONSHIP

2012 LLR 22 - DELHI HIGH COURT- Hon’ble Mr. M.L. Mehta, J.

Contd….
The High Court referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in
Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. V Union of India (1996 II
LLN 1194). In that case a firm providing conservancy services through
its employees also provided conservancy services to TELCO factory at
Pune.
The court upheld the contention of TELCO that it was merely one of the
many clients of the service provider who was doing conservancy work
through its own set of employees at various establishments and
factories and therefore, TELCO cannot be regarded as a “principal
employer” in relation to the service provider’s employees. The Court
further held that Section 8A of the EPF Act has no application to the
case because a contractor contemplated under that section of the Act
is one who is a mere front or headman of the principal employer and
this could not be said of this Service Provider who provides such
service to many clients including TELCO.
 PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL RELATIONSHIP

2012 LLR 22 - DELHI HIGH COURT- Hon’ble Mr. M.L. Mehta, J.

Contd….

The High Court also referred to the case of Basanta Kumar

Mohanty v. State of Orissa, 1992 (1) LLS 190 in which it was
held by the Orissa High Court that the Security and Detective
Service (India) Ltd. which was providing security services to
Talcher Thermal Power Station was not a contractor in relation
to the employees deputed by it to Talcher Thermal Power
Station nor was it required to obtain a license as contractor
under the Contract Labour Act hereby holding that the contract
between the two parties was a principal to principal contract for
services and not for supply of Labour.
KNOW DIFFERENCE BETWEEN

• Contract Labour
• Casual Labour
• Contractual Labour (See Ad.)
CONTRACTUAL APPOINTMENTS
 OUT-WORKER IS NOT A WORKMAN
– SECTION 1(1)
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 PURPOSE OF THE
TRADE OR BUSINESS OF THE P.E. 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.
 OBLIGATIONS UNDER
CONTRACT LABOUR (R&A) ACT
CONTRACTOR PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER

• LICENCE. X • CERTIFICATE OF REGN.

• WAGE PAYMENT. • INDIRECT OBLIGTION.
• HEALTH & WELFARE • INDIRECT OBLIGATION.
FACILITIES.
 Canteen (60 days) if 100 CL
is employed for 6 months
 Rest Room (15 days) if CL
is employed for 3 months
 Drinking Water, Latrines,
Urinals, Washing Facility,
First Aid (7 days)

• 7 REGISTERS & 2 HALF-

YEARLY RETURNS ENDING X • 1 REGISTER & 1 ANNUAL
30/6 AND 31/12. RETURN ENDING 31/12.
 SALIENT FEATURES OF CERTIFICATE OF
REGISTRATION AND OF LICENCE
CERTIFICATE OF
REGISTRATION
BY PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER
 NOT RENEWABLE ON YEAR TO YEAR
BASIS.
 ON PAYMENT OF FEES ONLY.
 AN APPLICATION OF REGISTRATION
SHOULD BE ACCOMPANIED BY A
BANK DRAFT.
 NO CONDITIONS ARE ATTACHED AS A
PART OF THE CERTIFICATE.
 CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION
NEED NOT BE DISPLAYED AT THE
ESTABLISHMENT BY P.E.
LICENCE
BY CONTRACTOR
 VALID ONLY FOR ONE
YEAR AND IS TO BE RENEWED
BEFORE ITS DATE OF VALIDATION.
 ON PAYMENT OF FEES
PLUS SECURITY DEPOSIT.
 SHOULD BE
ACCOMPANIED BY BANK DRAFT
PLUS CERTIFICATE FROM THE P.E.
 THERE IS A FULL
ANNEXURE CONTAINING 10
CONDITIONS FOR FULFILMENT BY
CONTRACTOR.
 SHOULD BE DISPLAYED
PROMINENTLY AT THE PREMISES
WHERE THE CONTRACT WORK IS
BEING CARRIED ON.
 REGISTRATION AND LICENCE FEE UNDER CONTRACT
LABOUR (REGULATION & ABOLITION) CENTRAL RULES, 1971
SLAB REGISTRATION FEE LICENCE FEE
BY P.E. BY
CONTRACTOR
20 Rs. 60 Rs. 15
21-50 Rs. 150 Rs. 37.50
51-100 Rs. 300 Rs. 75
101-200 Rs. 600 Rs. 150
201-400 Rs. 1200 Rs. 300
Exceeding 400 Rs. 1500 Rs. 375
N.B.1 Temporary Certificate of Registration or Licence is given
on affidavit that work is of immediate nature and would be
finished in fifteen days time. The slabs are 20-50, 51-200 and
above 200. Registration fee is Rs. 30, 60 and 90 respectively.
The Licence Fee is Rs. 15, 60 and 90 respectively.
N.B.2 The fees chargeable for renewal of Licence shall be the
same as for the grant thereof provided the application is received
not less than 30 days before the Licence expires; otherwise,
additional fee of 25% is payable for renewal. Additional fee can
 WHO IS THE “APPROPRIATE GOVT.” OF ESTABLISHMENTS
UNDER THE CONTRACT LABOUR (R&A) ACT, 1970 ?

(A) Central Govt. is the “Appropriate Govt.” for the following

establishments:
(a) any industry carried on by the Central Govt.
(b) any industry carried on under the authority of the
Central Govt.
(c) any controlled industry the control of which by the
union has been declared by any Central Act to be
expedient in the public interest.
(d) any of the following industries specifically listed in
the I.D. Act:
Railway Company, Dock Labour Board, IFCI, ESIC, Central
Board of Trustees, EPF, Air Transport Service, LIC, ONGC,
Deposit Insurance & Credit Guarantee Corporation, Central
Warehousing Corporation, UTI, FCI, Airports Authority of India,
Regional Rural Bank, Export Credit & Guarantee Corporation,
IRCI, Banking Service Commission, Banking or an Insurance
Co., Mine, Oil Field, Cantonment Board, Major Port.
(B) State Govt. is the “Appropriate Govt.” in respect of all other
establishments in which the establishment is situated.
PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE LAW PROVIDES FOR “SAME WAGE”
TO CONTRACT LABOUR IF THEIR WORK IS “SAME OR SIMILAR” TO
THE WORK OF YOUR REGULAR WORKMEN

RULE 25(2)(v)(a) OF CONTRACT LABOUR (R & A) ACT

IN CASE WHERE THE WORKMEN EMPLOYED BY THE CONTRACTOR

PERFORM THE SAME OR SIMILAR KIND OF WORK AS THE WORKMEN
DIRECTLY EMPLOYED BY THE PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER OF THE
ESTABLISHMENT, THEN
– THE WAGE RATES
– HOLIDAYS
– HOURS OF WORK AND
– OTHER CONDITIONS OF SERVICE
OF THE WORKMEN OF THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE THE SAME AS
APPLICABLE TO THE WORKMEN DIRECTLY EMPLOYED BY THE P.E. OF
THE ESTABLISHMENT ON THE SAME OR SIMILAR KIND OF WORK.

PROVIDED THAT IN THE CASE OF ANY DISAGREEMENT WITH REGARD TO

THE TYPE OF WORK, THE SAME SHALL BE DECIDED BY THE DY. CLC
(CENTRAL).
 LATEST JUDGEMENT OF SUPREME COURT ON RULE 25(2)(v)(a)
Supreme Court of India (Hon’ble Mr. D. K. Jain & Hon’ble Mr. R. M.
Lodha 2010 LLR 453 UP Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Board vs. UP Vidyut
Mazdoor Sangh)

Anpara Thermal Power Project has two Filtration Plants. On Plant

No. 1, regular workers are employed who are paid regular pay scales
while 28 contract workers employed on second Plant are paid a
much lower wage. The first Filtration Plant is permanent with
capacity of treating 30 lac gallons of water per day. Plant No. 2 is
temporary and has capacity to treat 3 lac gallons per day only. The
first plant supplies water to the entire colony and ITI trained
operators have been appointed as regular employees through
regular selection procedure on the basis of eligibility and
advertisement. The first plant runs 24 hours. The chemicals are
mixed by trained ITI regular employees. Contract Labour are
claiming wages on par with regular employees under Rule 25 (2)(v)
(a).
 LATEST JUDGEMENT OF SUPREME COURT ON RULE 25(2)(v)(a)
Supreme Court of India (Hon’ble Mr. D. K. Jain & Hon’ble Mr. R. M.
Lodha 2010 LLR 453 UP Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Board vs. UP Vidyut
Mazdoor Sangh) (contd.)

The Supreme Court observed that Rule 25(2)(v)(a) incorporates the

principle of “equal pay for equal work”. By statutory provision, it is
mandated that the employees engaged by the employer through
contractor who perform the same or similar kind of work must be paid the
same wages and facilities as are being paid to employees employed
directly by the principal employer of the establishment.

“The nature of work, duties & responsibilities attached thereto are

relevant in comparing and evaluating as to whether the workmen
employed through contractor performed the same or similar kind of work
as the workmen directly employed by the Principal Employer. Degree of
skill and various dimensions of a given job have to be gone into to reach
a conclusion that nature of duties of the staff in two categories are on par
or otherwise. Often the difference may be of a degree. It is well settled
that nature of work cannot be judged by mere volume of work; there may
be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility”. The
Supreme Court directed the Labour Commissioner to reexamine the
matter in the light of these observations.
 RESPONSIBILITY FOR PAYMENT OF WAGES – S. 21

 CONTRACTOR “SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE” FOR WAGES TO BE PAID BEFORE

EXPIRY OF PRESCRIBED PERIOD.
 P.E. TO NOMINATE A REPRESENTATIVE DULY AUTHORISED BY HIM TO BE
PRESENT AT THE TIME OF DISBURSEMENT OF WAGES. IT “SHALL BE THE
DUTY” OF SUCH REPRESENTATIVE TO CERTIFY THE AMOUNTS PAID AS
WAGES.
 IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTORS DUTY TO ENSURE DISBURSEMENT OF
WAGES IN THE PRESENCE OF THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER.
 IF CONTRACTOR FAILS TO MAKE PAYMENT WITHIN PRESCRIBED
PERIOD OR MAKES SHORT PAYMENT THEN THE P.E. SHALL BE
LIABLE TO MAKE PAYMENT….. AND RECOVER THE AMOUNT SO PAID
FROM THE CONTRACTOR EITHER BY DEDUCTION….. OR AS A DEBT
PAYABLE BY CONTRACTOR.
 WAGES PAYMENT: WITHIN 7/10 DAYS OF WAGE PERIOD.
 IN CASE OF TERMINATION: WITHIN 2 DAYS.
 PAYMENT AT WORK PREMISES / DURING WORKING HOURS.
 IN COIN OR CURRENCY.
 NOTICE OF WAGE PERIOD/PLACE/TIME TO BE DISPLAYED WITH COPY TO P.E.
 HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY – Mr. Justice F. I. Rebello
1998 – I – LLJ – 19
Surya Rau V. V., E.D. NOCIL & Others
vs.
Surendra Ramkrishna Tendulkar and Others.

2. Section 21 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act casts a duty on
the principal employer to nominate a representative at the time ot disbursement of wages by
the contractor to its employees. Similarly, a duty is cast on the contractor to disburse the
wages only in the presence of the authorized representative of the principal employer. Sub-
section(4) of Section 21 mentions that in case the contractor fails to make payment of
wages the wages have to be paid by the principal employer.
Reading all these provisions would show that even though no duty in the first
instance is cast under the Act and Rules on the principal employer to maintain registers…..,
nevertheless to give effect to the provisions of Sec. 21 such information must be available
with the principal employer so as to effect the payment of wages and salaries in case the
contractor commits defaults in making payment.
A duty is cast on the principal employer under the Contract Labour (Regulation
and Abolition) Act. In case the Contractor fails to pay wages etc. how would the principal
employer without having the records and registers discharge the obligations of the
Contractor ?
 PROHIBITION ON EMPLOYMENT OF
CONTRACT LABOUR – SECTION 10
 GOVT. ALONE HAS POWERS TO PROHIBIT EMPLOYMENT OF CONTRACT
LABOUR.
 GOVT. MUST ISSUE NOTIFICATION SPELLING OUT (i) PROCESS & OPERATION,
OR (ii) OTHER WORK IN ANY ESTABLISHMENT IN WHICH EMPLOYMENT OF
CONTRACT LABOUR IS PROHIBITED.
 IT IS INCUMBENT ON GOVT. TO CONSULT CONTRACT LABOUR ADVISORY
BOARD BEFORE ISSUING A NOTIFICATION PROHIBITING EMPLOYMENT OF
CONTRACT LABOUR.
 CONTRACT LABOUR ADVISORY BOARD MUST HAVE REGARD TO THESE
FACTORS :-
• WHAT ARE THE CONDITIONS OF WORK & BENEFITS PROVIDED FOR C.L.
IN THAT ESTABLISHMENT AND ALSO OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS SUCH
AS :
• WHETHER WORK ON WHICH C.L. IS ENGAGED IS INCIDENTAL TO OR
NECESSARY FOR THE OPERATION CARRIED ON IN ESTABLISHMENT.
• WHETHER WORK ON WHICH CONTRACT LABOUR IS EMPLOYED IS OF
PERENNIAL NATURE.
• WHETHER THE WORK IN THAT OR SIMILAR ESTABLISHMENT IS DONE
ORDINARILY THROUGH REGULAR WORKMEN OR THROUGH C.L.
• WHETHER THE WORK IS SUFFICIENT TO EMPLOY CONSIDERABLE NO.
OF WHOLE-TIME WORKMEN.
 2006 12 SCC 233 – Decided on 26-09-2006
Supreme Court of India – Mr. S. B. Sinha, J. & Mr. Dalveer Bhandari, J.
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

We may reiterate that neither the Labour Court nor the Writ Court could
determine the question as to whether the Contract Labour should be abolished or
not, the same being within the exclusive domain of the Appropriate Government.

A decision in that behalf undoubtedly is required to be taken upon

following the procedure laid down in sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the 1970 Act.
A notification can be issued by an Appropriate Government prohibiting
employment of Contract Labour if the factors enumerated in sub-section (2) of
Section 10 of the 1970 Act are satisfied.

When, however, a contention is raised that the contract entered into by

and between the management and the contractor is a sham one, in view of the
decision of this Court in Steel Authority of India Limited vs. National Union Water
Front Workers decided on 30.08.2001, an industrial adjudicator would be entitled
to determine the said issue. The industrial adjudicator would have jurisdiction to
determine the said issue as in the event if it be held that the contract purportedly
awarded by the management in favour of the contractor was really a camouflage
or a sham one, the employees appointed by the contractor would, in effect and
substance, be held to be direct employees of the management.
 AN ILLUSTRATIVE LIST 0F ACTIVITY AREAS WHICH MAY NEVER
ATTRACT A BAN UNDER THE LAW (SEC. 10 OF CLRA ACT)

 GUEST HOUSES.
 CLEANING, DUSTING AND WATCHING OF BUILDINGS.
 CANTEENS.
 OFFICERS’ BUNGLOWS.
 HORTICULTURE.
 TRAINING INSTITUTE.
 SECURITY DUTIES.
 HOSPITALS.
 DISPENSARIES.
 ANNUAL MAINTENANCE.
 ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.
 BUSES, CARS AND AMBULANCES PROVIDED THEY ARE OWNED BY CONTRACTOR.
 REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE, SERVICING AND OVERHAULING OF PRODUCTION MACHINES,
CRANES, TOOLS, INSTRUMENTATION, COMPUTERS PROVIDED THEY ARE ONE TIME JOBS
AND NOT ON-GOING MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS.
 REGULAR PROCESS OR OPERATION PROVIDED ADDITIONAL LABOUR IS FOR SEASONAL,
INTERMITTENT, CASUAL OR ERRATIC JOBS LIKE WEEKLY OR PERIODIC CLEANING, OILING,
WASHING OR DUSTING OF PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT.
 CLEANING OF CHOKED DRAINS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEMS.
 CUTTING OF SEASONAL GRASS.
 LOADING AND UNLOADING MATERIAL OR SCRAP.
 TYPING OF BULK DOCUMENTS AS ONE TIME JOB.
 COMPOSITION OF CENTRAL ADVISORY
CONTRACT LABOUR BOARD

CHAIRMAN

NOMINEES OF NOMINEES OF OFFICIAL CLC

EMPLOYEES’ EMPLOYERS’ NOMINEES (EX-OFFICIO)
ORGANIZATIONS & ORGANIZATIONS OF CENTRAL
CONTRACT LABOUR GOVERNMENT
(7) (7) (3) (1)

Railway Unions (2) Railways (2)

Coal Industry Unions (1) Coal Industry (1)
Mining Industry Unions (2) Mining Industry (2)
Contract Labour (2) Contractors (2)

FUNCTIONS OF ADVISORY BOARD

THE BOARD ADVISES ON MATTERS ARISING OUT OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT.
THE BOARD ADVISES ON WHETHER WORK OF ESTABLISHMENT IS OF INTERMITTENT OR
CASUAL NATURE.
THE BOARD ADVISES ON PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYMENT OF CONTRACT LABOUR.
 TERMINAL BENEFITS TO CONTRACT
LABOUR: RESPONSIBILITY OF
CONTRACTOR VIS-A-VIS PRINCIPAL
EMPLOYER
Particulars Contractor P.E
1. Termination Primary --
2. Wage for accumulated leave Primary Secondary
3. Retrenchment Compensation Primary --
4. Gratuity Primary --
5. Bonus Primary --
6. Workmen Compensation Secondary Primary
 HOW TO TERMINATE SERVICES
OF CONTRACT LABOUR
PRILIMINARY OBSERVATIONS
•Contract Labour is an employee of the Contractor.
Hence all liabilities of Retrenchment or Termination are
on the Contractor.
•Principal Employers should only ensure that the
Contractor makes the payment of Wage and Leave
Salary for accumulated leave.
•Contractors should employ contract labour for specific
periods and terminate or extend their employment for
specific periods to avoid liability of Retrenchment
Compensation.
 TERMINATION OF SERVICE OF CONTRACT LABOUR
COUNT 12 MONTHS DAYS** EXAMPLE
BACKWARDS WORKED
 RAMDAS IS CONTRACTOR OF
22ND
JUNE, 1998 22 NTPC, FARAKKA. RAMLAL IS
MAY, 1998 31 CONTRACT LABOUR WHOSE
APR., 1998 – SERVICE ARE TERMINATED
MAR., 1998 18 ON 23.6.1998
FEB., 1998 19
JAN., 1998 27 TO DO LIST
DEC., 1997 29 • LAST COME FIRST GO.
NOV., 1997 30 • PAY RETRENCHMENT COMPENSATION.
OCT., 1997 28 • GIVE ONE MONTHS NOTICE.
SEP., 1997 26 • INFORM LABOUR DEPARTMENT.
AUG., 1997 09 • PAY WAGE UPTO 23.6.1998.
JUL., 1997 25 • WAGE FOR ACCUMULATED LEAVE.
21ST JUNE, 1997 08 • PRINCIPLE (1) APPLICABLE EVEN IF
TOTAL 272 SERVICE IS FOR LESS THAN 240 DAYS.
THE FOLLOWING TERMINATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE RETRENCHMENT
 RETIREMENT  RESIGNATION  MEDICAL UNFITNESS OR CONTINUED ILL-
HEALTH  REMOVAL OR DISCHARGE ON ACCOUNT OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION
 TERMINATION ON COMPLETION OF SPECIFIED PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT.
**INCLUDES PERIODS OF  SICKNESS AUTHORISED LEAVE / REST DAYS
LEGAL STRIKE CESSATION OF WORK NOT DUE TO FAULT OF WORKMAN
MATERNITY LEAVE.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA – Hon’ble Mr. S. B. Sinha, J.,
and Hon’ble Mr. P. O. Balasubramanyan, J.,
Decided on 6-1-2006 – 2006 LLR 583

TERMINATION IN CASE OF SHORT-LIVED APPOINTMENTS

A workman who is categorically informed that the

appointment was a short-lived one and would be liable to
termination when the employer thought it fit or proper or
necessary to do so is covered by second part of Section
2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, it will not
constitute retrenchment.
 2013 LLR 1042
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA – Hon’ble Mr. K. S.
Radhakrishnan, J., and Hon’ble Mr. Pinaki Chandra
Ghose, J., Decided on 16-07-2013

TERMINATION IN CASE OF SHORT-LIVED APPOINTMENTS

 Termination of the workman, engaged on fixed-period as
mentioned in the contract of appointment, would not amount to
retrenchment since such terminations are excluded by section 2(00)
(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

 When termination of the workman does not amount to

retrenchment, the question of applicability of 25G providing for
following the principle of ‘last come, first go’ for retrenching the
workman and also section 25H providing for re-employment of the
workman would not be applicable.
 2013 LLR 305
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA – Hon’ble Mr. I. S. Thakur,
J., and Hon’ble Mr. M. Y. Eqbal, J.,
Decided on 01-02-2013
(Rajkumar S/o Rohitlal Mishra vs. Jalagaon Municipal Corporation)

The employer might be guilty of flouting the drill prescribed by section 25F
of the Industrial Disputes Act while dismissing a daily wage-worker who has
put in more than 240 days of continuous service – But that does not mean
he should be invariably reinstated with back-wages – The right to be
reinstated is reserved for permanent workers – Awarding of compensation
for illegal termination would normally meet the ends of justice - It was,
therefore, ordered payment of Rs. 50,000 as compensation for illegal
termination while turning down the request for reinstatement with 25
percent back-wages.
 2013 LLR 1009
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA – Hon’ble Mr. R. M. Lodha,
J., and Hon’ble Mr. Madan B. Lokur, J.,
Decided on 16-08-2013
(AEN, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board vs. Mohan Lal)

B. COMPENSATION – In lieu of reinstatement – Factors to be considered –

When the termination of a workman is violative of section 25F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – If compensation in lieu of reinstatement is to
be awarded, the relevant factors would be mode and manner of appointment,
nature of employment, length of service, ground on which the termination
has been set aside and delay in raising the industrial dispute.

C. INDUSTRIAL ADJUDICATION – Limitation Act, 1963 – Although the

Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable for raising the industrial dispute – But
it is certainly and important circumstance which the Labour Court must
keep in view while granting relief to a workman.
 CONTRACT LABOUR WITH 240 DAYS OF SERVICE CANNOT BE ABSORBED
2010 LLR 69 JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
M/s Central Coalfields Ltd vs. Contract Workmen of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd Ltd & Anr

“The learned Tribunal has further erred in holding that

merely on completing 240 days in calendar year, the
contract labour were entitled to be absorbed by the
principal employer. This issue is no more res integra
and the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
State of Karnataka v Uma Devi’s case, even though
rendered in service jurisprudence, equally apply to
industrial dispute, as the Supreme Court also held that
it cannot conduct direct absorption or regularisation or
make the worker permanent in the case of contract
labour in Bhurkunda Colliery.”
 Calculation of Retrenchment
Compensation
While making payment of Retrenchment Compensation at
the rate of 15 days wage for each completed year of
service, a month has to be taken as having 30 days and
not 26 days unlike the position under the Payment of
Gratuity Act. In PG Act, an explanation has been added
after second provision to Section 4(2). No such change has
been made in Section 25F(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Decided by Supreme Court, 2007(1) LLN 740 (Guru

Jambheshwar University through Registrar Vs. Dharam Pal)

Position reiterated by Madras High Court (2010 LLR 159)

 TERMINAL BENEFITS ETC. TO
CONTRACT LABOUR
PAYMENT OF GRATUITY
Q1. If a contractor does not make payment of Gratuity is it then payable by
the Principal Employer ?
A. In the case of Contract Labour, Gratuity is payable by the
Contractor and not by the Principal Employer [Cominco Binani Zinc Ltd.
vs. Pap Pachan – 1989 LLR 123 / 1989 1 LLJ 425, Kerala HC]
Again, the Kerala HC in a very recent judgement (2008 LLR 154)
has held in the Food Corporation of India vs. V. Mohammed Manzil &
Ors. case that FCI was not liable to pay Gratuity as no employee-
employer relationship exists between contract labour and FCI. As per
the definition of the term ‘employee’, employee is a person who is
employed on wages in any establishment. The workmen (contract
labour) were not employed on wages in the FCI’s establishment though
their place of work may be a depot belonging to the FCI. They (contract
labour) were employed by the establishment, namely, by the private
contractor or by the cooperative society and they were deputed to do
their work in FCI’s depot.
 TERMINAL BENEFITS

PAYMENT OF BONUS

The Wages due to be paid by the Principal

Employer under Section 21 of the Contract
Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1971 do not
include Bonus or Gratuity. The P.E. is liable to
pay the wages due to the workers which is in
arrears and nothing more.

COMINCO BINANI ZINC LTD. vs. PAP PACHAN

– 1989 LLR 123/1989 1 LLJ 425 – KERALA H.C.
IS WORKMEN COMPENSATION PAYABLE ? Delhi (19/10/2008)
 Sec. 12 of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923
1)If the Principal Employer, for his trade or business engages a
contractor, the Principal Employer should be liable to pay to
any compensation as if the contractor’s workman had been
employed by the Principal Employer calculated at the rate of
wage paid by the contractor.

2)The Principal Employer may be indemnified by the contractor

or sub-contractor. The contractor may also be indemnified by
a sub-contractor.

3)The workman has the liberty to recover compensation from

the contractor instead of the Principal Employer

Note: Under sec. 2(i)(n), no compensation is payable to a

workman who is employed otherwise than for the purpose of
the Principal Employer’s trade or business
 TERMINAL BENEFITS
PAYMENT OF WORKMEN COMPENSATION

The legal provision in the Workmen’s Compensation Act relating to

responsibility of Principal Employer vis-à-vis Contractors is as under:
Section 12
Contracting. – (1) Where any person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the principal) in the
course of or for the purposes of his trade or business contracts with any other person (hereinafter
in this section referred to as the contractor for the execution by or under the contractor of the
whole or any part of any work which is ordinarily part of the trade or business of the principal, the
principal shall be liable to pay to any workman employed in the execution of the work any
compensation which he would have been liable to pay if that workman had been immediately
employed by him; and where compensation is claimed from the principal, this Act shall apply as if
references to the principal were substituted for references to the employer except that the amount
of compensation shall be calculated with reference to the wages of the workman under the
employer by whom he is immediately employed.

(2) Where the principal is liable to pay compensation under this section, he shall be entitled to be
indemnified by the contractor, [or any other person from whom the workman could have recovered
compensation and where a contractor who is himself a principal employer is liable to pay
compensation or to indemnify a principal employer under this section he shall be entitled to be
indemnified by any person standing to him in the relation of a contractor from whom the workman
could have recovered compensation,] and all questions as to the right to and the amount of any
such indemnity shall, in default of agreement, be settled by the Commissioner.
 TERMINAL BENEFITS

PAYMENT OF WORKMEN COMPENSATION (contd.)

Section 12 (contd.)

(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing a workman

from recovering compensation from the contractor instead of the
principal employer.
(4) This section shall not apply in any case where the accident occurred
elsewhere that on, in or about the premises on which the principal has
under taken or usually undertakes, as the case may be, to execute the
work or which are otherwise under his control or management.
JUDGEMENT
The Principal Employer cannot escape from his liability to pay
compensation; [(Surjeras Unkar Jadhav vs. Gurinder Singh, (1991) 62
FLR 315 (Bom.)]
 CONTRACT LABOUR
AND SOCIAL SECURITY

PROVIDENT FUND, PENSION, EDLI AND ESI

 3 SCHEMES UNDER EPF & MISC PROVISIONS ACT, 1952

1. EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND

 Employee contributes 12% of wage.
2. EMPLOYEES’ PENSION FUND [FROM 16.11.95]
 Employer contributes 12% out of which 8.33% goes
to Pension Fund. Balance 3.67% goes to Employees’
A/c.
 Central Govt. contributes 1.16% to the Pension
Fund.
3. EMPLOYEES’ DEPOSIT-LINKED INSURANCE FUND [FROM
1.8.76]
 Employer contributes @ 0.5% of wage. Employee
does not contribute.
 Equal to the average monthly wages drawn (Subject
to
maximum of Rs. 15,000) multiplied by 20 times. (Note:
This benefit shall be further increased by twenty per cent in addition to the benefit
admissible at present vide GOI Notification No. F.No.S-35012/1/2012-SS.II
dated 22nd August, 2014)
 DEFINITION OF ‘CONTRACT LABOUR’ UNDER
CONTRACT LABOUR (R & A) ACT AND EPF ACT
CONTRACT LABOUR (R&A) ACT EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND ACT
SECTION 2(f) SECTION 2(f)
“Workman” means any person employed in or “Employee” means any person who is
in connection with the work of any employed for wages in any kind of
establishment to do any skilled, semi-skilled or
work, manual or otherwise, in or in
unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or
clerical work for hire or reward whether the
connection with the work of an
terms or implied but does not include the establishment, and who gets his
following persons: wages directly or indirectly from the
a) one who is employed mainly in a employer, and includes any person –
managerial or administrative capacity; or (i) Employed by or through a contractor
b) one who is employed in a supervisory in or in connection with the work of
capacity drawing wages exceeding Rs. the establishment;
500 per month; or
(ii) Engaged as an apprentice not being
c) one who is an out-worker, i.e., a person
to whom any articles or, materials are
an apprentice engaged under the
given out to be made up, cleaned, Apprentices Act, 1961 (52 of 1961), or
washed, altered or ornamented, finished, under the standing orders of the
repaired, adapted or otherwise processed establishment.
for sale for the purposes of trade or
business of the P.E. and the process is
carried out either in the home or at some
other premises, not being premises,
under the control and management of the
P.E.
 EPF & M. P. ACT, 1952

DEFINITION OF “EMPLOYEE” UNDER SECTION 2

“employee” means :

any person who is employed for wages in any kind of

work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the
work of an establishment, and who gets his wages directly
or indirectly from the employer, and includes any person –
(i) employed by or through a contractor in or in
connection with the work of the establishment;
(ii) engaged as an apprentice, not being an apprentice
engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961, or under the
standing orders of the establishment.
 EPF & M. P. ACT, 1952

DEFINITION OF “EMPLOYER” UNDER SECTION 2 (e)

“employer” means :
(i) in relation to an establishment which is a factory, the owner or
occupier of the factory, including the agent of such owner or occupier, the
legal representative of a deceased owner or occupier and, where a person
has been named as a manager of the factory under clause (f) of sub-
section (1) of section 7 of the Factories Act, 1948, the person so named;
and
(ii) in relation to any other establishment, the person who, or the
authority which, has the ultimate control over the affairs of the
establishment, and where the said affairs are entrusted to a manager,
managing director or managing agent, such manager, managing
director or managing agent.
2008 LLR 126 – Delhi High Court – Hon’ble Mrs. Hima Kohli, J.
– Jaggi & Co. vs. Presiding Officer, Employees’ Provident Fund
Appellate Tribunal & Anr.
OBLIGATION OF PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER TO RECOVER PF
Section 6 of the Act does not distinguish between employees engaged by the
employer and those engaged through a contractor and instead refers to both, i.e.,
employees employed by an establishment directly or by or through a contractor.
Even the definition of ‘employee’ does not distinguish between a casual employee or
a regularly engaged employee and instead includes employees employed by or
through a contractor in connection with the work of the petitioner establishment.
Similarly, paragraphs 30 and 36B of the Scheme also do not make any such
distinction. In fact both the provisions require an employer in the first instance to
pay contribution payable by him as also on behalf of the member employed by him
directly or by or through a contractor. Para 36B of the Scheme also enjoins every
contractor to submit to the principal employer, a statement showing recoveries of
contributions in respect of the employees employed by or through him. Therefore,
the claim of the petitioner establishment that the 12 piece rate casual workers
working under the contractor ought to have been excluded by the RPFC while
considering the case of applicability of the Act to the petitioner establishment is
contrary to the intendment of the Act and rejected.
 COMPLIANCE OF STATUTORY OBLIGATION BY PRINCIPAL
EMPLOYER IN RESPECT OF CONTRACT LABOUR CANNOT BE A
DECIDING FACTOR FOR HOLDING THAT CONTRACT LABOUR ARE
EMPLOYEES OF PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Complying of statutory liability by the Principal Employer for payment of

ESI and Provident Fund Contributions for the employees as engaged
through Contractor will not be a deciding factor that the workers of the
Contractor could become the employees the Principal employer and the
company can not shirk from statutory obligation.
Bhartiya Kamgar Sena – vs – Udhe (I) Ltd. & Another – Bombay High
Court. [2008 – LLR – 344 ]

Ranbir Singh and Another vs. Ganga Ram Hospital – Delhi High Court –
Hon’ble Mr. I. S. Mehta, J. [2015 - LLR - 1071]
WHERE A CONTRACTOR HAS BEEN ALLOTED INDEPENDENT EPF CODE
NUMBER AND THE CONTRACTOR PROVIDES SERVICES TO VARIOUS FIRMS
AND ALSO HIS EMPLOYEES ARE UNDER ULTIMATE CONTROL OF THE
CONTRACTOR THEN SUCH CONTRACTOR IS NOT WORKING ON
CONTRACTOR-TO-PE BASIS BUT ON PE-TO-PE BASIS. SUCH CONTRACTOR IS
AN EMPLOYER UNDER EPF ACT BEING HIMSELF THE PE.

BOMBAY HIGH COURT – 1996 II LLN 1194 –TATA ENGINEERING &

LOCOMOTIVE CO. TTD. V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

In this case a registered cooperative Society provided conservancy

services to TELCO. The Society had its own existence independent of
TELCO and was allotted a EPF Code Number. The Court upheld the
contention of TELCO that it was merely one of the many clients of the
Society who was doing conservancy work through its own set of
employees at various establishments and factories and, therefore,
TELCO cannot be regarded as a PE in relation to the employees of the
Cooperative Society. The Court further held that Sec. 8A of the EPF
ACT has no application to the case because a contractor contemplated
under that Sec. is one who is a mere front or headman of the PE and
this could not be said of the said Cooperative Society.
 KERALA HIGH COURT -2012 LLR 165 – EMPLOYEES’
PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION vs. EMPLOYEES’
PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

“Consultant doctors providing services for some hours or

so to different establishments without control over them by
that establishment would not come under the category of
“employees” coverable under Section 2(f) of the
Employees’ Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952.”
 EPF SCHEME, 1952
PARA 30 – Payment of contribution
(1) The employer shall, in the first instance, pay both the contributions
payable by himself (in this Scheme referred to as the employer’s
contribution) and also, on behalf of the member employed by him
directly or by or through a contractor, the contribution payable by such
member (in the Scheme referred to as the member’s contribution).
(2) In respect of employees employed by or through a contractor, the
contractor shall recover the contribution payable by such employee (in
this Scheme referred to as the member’s contribution) and shall pay to
the principal employer the amount of member’s contribution so
deducted together with an equal amount of contribution (in this
Scheme referred to as the employer’s contribution) and also
administrative charges.
(3) It shall be the responsibility of the principal employer to pay both the
contribution payable by himself in respect of the employees directly
employed by him and also in respect of the employees employed by or
through a contractor and also administrative charges.
 INTERPRETATION OF PARA 30 OF EPF
SCHEME

2015 LLR 1023 – PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT – Hon’ble

Mr. Amit Rawal, J. – M/s. Calcutta Constructions Company vs.
RPFC and Others (Para 16 of Judgement)
“The aforementioned provisions (of para 30) envisage the situation where
the contractor has not been allotted code number, for the reasons that in
such situation the employee should not be made to suffer”.
When code No. is allotted to a contractor under the Employees’ Provident
Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, it becomes an
establishment under section 2(e) of the contract Labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970 making it liable to pay EPF contributions of its
employees.
When the contractor has not been allotted code No. , the contributions in
respect of contractor’s employees shall have to be paid at the first instance
by the principal employer and recover the same later on from the
contractor. PE is not liable to pay EPF contributions in respect of
employees engaged through independent contractor who has been having
an independent code No. under the EPF and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952.
 CHALLENGE TO THE CONDITION IN THE BID THAT PF CODE NUMBER IS
MANDATORY FOR CONTRACTORS PARTICIPATING IN THE BID. DECISION;
IT IS NEITHER ILLEGAL NOR AGAINST THE PUBLIC INTEREST

“Mandatory condition in tender that participants (contractors) shall be

having Provident Fund Code number even if workforce engaged by that
contractor is below 20, is not unconstitutional or illegal since it is for
the benefit of the weaker section of the society.

Under Section 8(a) of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous

Provisions Act, 1952, it is mandatory for all the firms to obtain EPF
Code number under section 3(b) of the Act.

Since the condition of PF Code number mentioned in the bid is for

providing better security to the workmen working under different
contractors and sub-contractors, the challenge to it is neither illegal
nor against the public interest.” (2017 LLR 63 CALCUTTA HIGH
COURT, Hon’ble Mr. Samapti Chatterjee J. Dt. 08-11-2016 M/s. R. K.
Trading Co. (India) & Others vs. Union of India and others)
 EPF SCHEME, 1952

PARA 36-B
DUTIES OF CONTRACTORS

Every contractor shall, within seven days of the close of

every month, submit to the principal employer a
statement showing the recoveries of contributions in
respect of employees employed by or through him and
shall also furnish to him such information as the
principal employer is required to furnish under the
provisions of the Scheme to the Commissioner.
 Industrial Management Academy

APPLICABILITY OF ESI ACT AND SCHEME

THE SCHEME IS EXTENDED AREA-WISE FROM TIME TO TIME TO:

(1) FACTORIES USING POWER AND EMPLOYING 10 OR MORE PERSONS; AND

(2) ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYING 20 OR MORE PERSONS;

(3) THE SCHEME HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO SHOPS, HOTELS,

RESTAURANTS, ROADS, MOTOR TRANSPORT UNDERTAKINGS AND
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE STAFF IN HOSPITALS.

WAGE LIMIT FOR APPLICABILITY

ALL EMPLOYEES INCLUDING CONTRACT LABOUR DRAWING WAGE UPTO Rs.

15,000 PER MONTH (RAISED FROM RS. 10,000 TO RS. 15,000 W.E.F. 1 ST MAY,
2010) ARE TO BE COVERED COMPULSORILY. WAGE INCLUDES BASIC PAY,
DA, HRA, CCA, PRODUCTION INCENTIVE, NIGHT SHIFT HEAT, GAS & DUST
ALLOWANCE, MEAL / FOOD ALLOWANCE, SUSPENSION ALLOWANCE AND
CHILDREN EDUCATION ALLOWANCE (NOT REIMBURSEMENT).

RATE OF CONTRIBUTION

EMPLOYERS 4.75%
EMPLOYEES 1.75%
BENEFITS

Cash Benefits

FOR SICKNESS, EXTENDED SICKNESS, TEMPORARY DISABLEMENT,

PERMANENT DISABLEMENT, MATERNITY AND DEATH DUE TO EMPLOYMENT
INJURY.

Maternity Benefits

INSURED WOMEN ARE GIVEN MATERNITY BENEFITS.

CONTRIBUTION PERIOD AND BENEFIT PERIOD

(i) 1ST APRIL TO 30TH SEPTEMBER AND (ii) 1ST OCTOBER TO 31ST MARCH.

CORRESPONDING BENEFIT PERIOD: (i) STARTING FROM 1 ST JANUARY AND

ENDING ON 30TH JUNE AND (ii) STARTING FROM 1 ST JULY AND ENDING ON 31ST
DECEMBER.

A GAP OF THREE MONTHS BETWEEN THE CONTRIBUTION PERIOD AND

CORRESPONDING BENEFIT PERIOD IS FOR KEEPING PROPER RECORD.

EXEMPTION

EXEMPTION IS GRANTED ON YEAR TO YEAR BASIS PROVIDED BENEFITS ARE

GIVEN ARE ON PAR OR ARE BETTER THAN ESI BENEFITS.
Thank
You