Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

gigi pramod (n/a)     30 September 2008

contract labour

hi,
we have entered into an agreement for annual maintenace of ups. we have in our contract mentioned that the contractor's employee shall not be compensated with respect to injury or factal accident. the contractor is objecting for the same and wants it to be deleted. i think that we are right and the contractor is liable for the same. please comment on the same.


Learning

 9 Replies

SHEKHAR MISHRA (public servant)     30 September 2008

Let   him   object.You   have  done  the  right   thing.

gigi pramod (n/a)     30 September 2008

Now he is asking for explanation. what shall i reply

P.Elamaran (Law Officer in a CPSU)     30 September 2008

Dear Gigi Pramod,


Under AMC contracts, if the contractor employs contract labourers and there happens to some injury or accident/ fatal accident , the primary responsibilty to pay compensation to the injured or deceased laboureres lies with the contractor under the provisions of CL(RA) Act. However, when the contractor fails to pay compensation to the injured labourers, then the secondary responsibility shifts to the principal employer (i.e.a company or firm etc). In these kind of situations, the principal employer has to pay compensation the victims and has to make recovery from amounts that are due to be paid to the contractor under the terms and conditions of the contract.


With warm regards,


P.Elamaran.

Vikas Kr. Sinha (Labour Lawyer Ranchi Jharkhand)     01 October 2008

Mr. Elamran has rightly described the legal position. In this connection section 20 and 21 of CL(R&A) Act,1970 can be referred.
Any contract made, beyond/ contrary to the provision of law shall be voidable/ void-ab-initio.

gigi pramod (n/a)     01 October 2008

Thank you all for giving clarify in this concept.

K.C.Suresh (Advocate)     01 October 2008

A good work by Mr. Elamran

Saravana Rajan   03 October 2008

Dear Experts,


If I am not wrong there is a court judgement which clearly states that outsiders (service providers) need not have to be employees of the principal employer. In this context, the case above is clearly answered.


The service providers` employees need not have to be covered for such benefits.


-Saravana Rajan

JAGADEESH GOVIND (ADVOCATE)     03 October 2008

Dear Sir,


Pl give the citation of the judgement ,?




 


Jagan

Saravana Rajan   06 October 2008

Dear Mr. Jadadeesh,


Pls find the attachment


-Saravana Rajan


Attached File : 35 court judgement - outside party.doc downloaded: 200 times

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Start a New Discussion Unreplied Threads


Popular Discussion


view more »




Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query