Principal Employer Need to Mention Name of Contractor & Subcontractors in Registration Certificate

Only Principal Employer has right to provide Form V to Contractor & it's Subcontractor

The term contractor includes the term sub-contractor u/s 2(c). Therefore, every subcontractor is a contractor. Neither the Contract Labour Act nor the rules made pursuant thereto describe or define the sub-contractor.

In this regard, I’m supported by the virtue of The Supreme Court verdict in Gammon India Ltd. and Ors. v Union of India (UOI) and Ors., AIR 1974 SC 960: (1974)I LLJ 489 SC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has put the contractor and subcontractor on the same pedestal qua the establishment, in terms of the CLRA Act. They are both doing the work of the establishment, and therefore Form-V has to be issued by the Principal Employer. The concept of principal employer is inextricably linked with the establishment.
Trust that this will secure my readers appeal regarding Principal Employer liability to provide Form V to sub- contractor, though there is any agreement or not.
Adding to this, shall also like to express that in absence of valid contract labour license, a contract workman shall be deemed to be the workman engaged directly by the principal employer.
In this regard I am supported by the verdict on case of P&H HC: Chet Ram Vs. PO Labour Court Faridabad 2011

My earlier writing on same -

Subcontractor is also a Contractor

Sub contractor is also a contractor (read section 2(c), this part of the definition is lucid. However, the words “and include a sub-contractor” throws us into an infinite loop. The term contractor therefore includes the term sub-contractor. Therefore, every sub-contractor is a contractor. Neither the Contract Labour Act nor the rules made pursuant thereto describe or define the sub-contractor.

Section 12 that deals with licensing of contractors prohibits any contractor from employing contract labour without a license to do so. As per the Rule 18 provides for Form II of the certificate of registration to be granted under Section 7 [2] of the Act.

The certificate of registration has to contain

[i] the name and address of the establishment,

[ii] the maximum number of workmen to be employed as contract labour in the establishment,

[iii] the type of business, trade, industry, manufacture or occupation which is carried on in the establishment,

[iv] the names and addresses of contractors,

[v] nature of work in which contract labour is employed or is to be employed and

[vi] other particulars relevant to the employment of contract labor

Also read with Rules 21 (2), every application for the grant of a license shall be accompanied by a certificate by the principal employer in Form V to the effect that the contractor has been employed by him as such in relation to his establishment.

The principal employer further undertakes to be bound by all the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder in so far as the provisions are applicable to him in respect of the employment of contract labour by the contractor.

In this regard, I’m supported by the virtue of The Supreme Court verdict in Gammon India Ltd. and Ors. v Union of India (UOI) and Ors., AIR 1974 SC 960: (1974)I LLJ 489 SC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has put the contractor and subcontractor on the same pedestal qua the establishment, in terms of the CLRA Act. They are both doing the work of the establishment, and therefore Form-V has to be issued by the Principal Employer. The concept of principal employer is inextricably linked with the establishment.

I trust that this will secure my readers appeal regarding Principal Employer liability to provide Form V to sub contractor.

Adding to this, I would also like to inform that in absence of valid contract labour license. As per Section 12 - Licensing of contractors: No Contractor shall undertake or execute any work through contract labour except license issued by licensing officer.

So, I would like inform you that in the absence of a valid license, a contract workman would be deemed to be the workman engaged directly by the principal employer.

In this regard I am supported by the verdict on case of P&H HC: Chet Ram Vs. PO Labour Court Faridabad 2011

In case any further elucidation needed please let me know