The Role of HR Practices in Enhancing Third-Party Workforce Effectiveness: A Study of SSHRD Group, Chennai

This study provides converging empirical evidence that site HR practices are decisive determinants of third-party workforce outcomes in manufacturing settings. Three principal conclusions emerge. First, grievance system accessibility directly and strongly accelerates issue resolution (r = 0.874), confirming that structural investments in grievance infrastructure produce measurable operational improvements. Second, fair treatment is the single strongest predictor of retention intention, explaining 52.8% of its variance — a result that positions HR fairness not as a compliance obligation but as a core strategic retention lever. Third, employment type does not significantly differentiate retention intention, suggesting that inclusive HR practices can effectively and efficiently serve the entire third-party workforce without segmented investment strategies. Based on the empirical findings, four prioritised recommendations are offered for HR practitioners managing third-party workforces in manufacturing settings: •  Implement real-time grievance tracking systems with defined resolution SLAs. Given that 39% of workers report grievance resolution times exceeding one week, organisations should deploy digital grievance platforms (mobile-accessible, vernacular-language capable) with automated escalation protocols and mandatory closure timelines. SLA compliance should be a KPI for site HR teams. •  Prioritise DBT disbursement compliance. The finding that 47% of respondents experience delayed DBT payments represents a critical failure in the HR–worker trust compact, particularly for NAPS apprentices whose entire stipend depends on this mechanism. Site HR teams should establish direct coordination protocols with accounting and contractor liaisons to ensure zero-delay DBT processing. •  Invest in HR communication and transparency. The 44% neutral/negative rating for HR communication and the last-place ranking of HR communication in the priority survey signal a significant trust gap. Monthly structured HR townhalls, multilingual communication boards, and individual onboarding briefings can address this gap systematically. •  Embed fair treatment as a strategic HR objective. Given its outsized predictive impact on retention (R² = 0.528), fair treatment should be operationalised through concrete HR process standards: consistent wage payment timelines, transparent attendance error-correction protocols, structured and non-discriminatory feedback mechanisms, and supervisor training in procedural and interpersonal justice. At the policy level, the findings support the Labour Code provisions requiring principal employers to assume joint responsibility for contract worker welfare. The empirical evidence presented here demonstrates that when principal employers — through their site HR partners — invest in accessible grievance mechanisms and equitable treatment, measurable workforce stability outcomes follow. Regulatory frameworks should therefore incentivise and audit these investments, rather than relying solely on contractual compliance documentation. Furthermore, the NAPS framework's reliance on DBT as the exclusive stipend channel creates a structural vulnerability: any delay in the DBT ecosystem immediately and visibly impacts apprentice welfare, eroding confidence in the scheme among both workers and industry participants. A supplementary direct-payment mechanism, or a mandatory DBT SLA enforced by the Ministry of Skill Development, could mitigate this risk.

[1]  Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment. (2023). Annual Report on Labour Statistics. New Delhi: Ministry of Labour & Employment. [2]  Kalleberg, A. L. (2000). Nonstandard employment relations: Part-time, temporary and contract work. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 341–365. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.341 [3]  Srivastava, B., Mehta, R., & Pillai, S. (2025). The regulatory realignment: Impact of the new Indian Labour Codes on HR practices. Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 68(2), 101–118. [4]  Negt, P., Fischer, H., & Brühl, V. (2025). HRM research–practice gap review: A systematic literature analysis. Human Resource Management Journal, 35(1), 1–22. [5]  Kalleberg, A. L. (2000). Op. cit. [6]  Connelly, C. E., & Gallagher, D. G. (2004). Emerging trends in contingent work research. Journal of Management, 30(6), 959–983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.008 [7]  De Cuyper, N., De Jong, J., De Witte, H., Isaksson, K., Rigotti, T., & Schalk, R. (2008). Literature review of theory and research on the psychological impact of temporary employment: Towards a conceptual model. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1), 25–51. [8]  Maroof, M. A., & Murgai, A. (2023). Study of HR practices for contract labour in manufacturing: Evidence from North India. Journal of HR Management, 21(3), 45–58. [9]  Srivastava, B., et al. (2025). Op. cit. [10]  Ouabi, Z. (2024). Exploring the relationship between HR practices and employee outcomes: A systematic review. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 35(2), 110–128.