The allegations leveled by the Joint Action Committee for PGI Contract Employees Unions in its representation dated November 18, 2024 are completely baseless
PGIMER Chandigarh: The allegations put forth by the Joint Action Committee for PGI Contract Workers Unions in their representation dated November 18, 2024, are entirely ungrounded and appear to be a premeditated and calculated attempt to malign the reputation of PGIMER and its administration. It is, therefore, extremely essential to provide a comprehensive rebuttal to these claims in order to uphold the integrity and transparency of our Institute’s recruitment processes.
PGIMER Chandigarh: The allegations put forth by the Joint Action Committee for PGI Contract Workers Unions in their representation dated November 18, 2024, are entirely ungrounded and appear to be a premeditated and calculated attempt to malign the reputation of PGIMER and its administration. It is, therefore, extremely essential to provide a comprehensive rebuttal to these claims in order to uphold the integrity and transparency of our Institute’s recruitment processes.
It is crucial to clarify that the responsibility for employing outsourced workers lies solely with the service provider, M/s M4 Solutions Pvt. Ltd., which operates independently in this capacity.
Furthermore, on July 1, 2024, M/s M4 Solutions Pvt. Ltd. submitted a formal communication listing ten outsourced workers designated for deployment across various departments at PGIMER, Chandigarh, in strict accordance with institutional requirements.
The entire process of deploying these outsourced workers is meticulously conducted by the service provider, adhering to the stipulations outlined in the contract agreement. This agreement explicitly mandates the service provider to furnish sufficient and qualified personnel.
Importantly, the Dy. Director (Administration) and the administration itself have no jurisdiction over the hiring of these outsourced workers. In fact, the employment files for these workers do not even pass through the Dy. Director (Administration), underscoring that he has no involvement in their employment.
This clear delineation of responsibilities serves to further substantiate that the allegations are not only unfounded but also grossly misleading, thereby, being a deliberate attempt to create a ‘trust deficit’ among public for the institute, which has been steadfast in its patient care since six decades.
