Short answer. No. Article 112 of the Labor Code forbids an employer from limiting or interfering with an employee's freedom to dispose of wages, and specifically bars forcing, compelling, or obliging employees to buy from, or use the store or services of, any other person -- which covers an outside vendor just as much as the employer's own company store.
What the law says
He shall not in any manner force, compel, or oblige his employees to purchase merchandise, commodities or other property from any other person, or otherwise make use of any store or services of such employer or any other person.
Labor Code, Article 112 — Freedom To Spend Wages. Read the full provision →
The rule is not limited to the company store
It is easy to read the old "company store" idea narrowly, but Article 112's language is deliberately broader. It bars an employer from forcing, compelling, or obliging employees to buy merchandise, commodities, or other property, or to use the store or services of any other person -- not just a store the employer itself owns. An outside vendor the employer has a deal with, a preferred supplier, or a third-party service provider all fall within "any other person," so directing employees to that vendor is covered by the same prohibition.
What the underlying freedom protects
The article frames this as non-interference in disposal of wages: an employee's wages belong to the employee to spend as they choose, and an employer may not limit or otherwise interfere with that freedom. Mandating a specific outside vendor for something an employee would otherwise buy or arrange independently -- insurance, uniforms, meals, transport, or similar services -- runs against that same principle, whether the arrangement benefits the employer directly or simply reflects a business relationship with the vendor.
What crosses the line
The statute uses three verbs -- force, compel, or oblige -- which point at compulsion, not mere convenience. An employer can offer a vendor's services as an option, or negotiate a discount employees are free to take or leave. What the article prohibits is making that vendor mandatory in a way that removes the employee's choice, whether through an outright directive, a deduction tied to using the vendor, or making continued employment or benefits conditional on patronizing it.
If your employer is doing this
If a mandatory outside-vendor arrangement is being imposed on you, the starting point is Article 112 itself -- it is a direct, on-the-books prohibition, not an inferred one. A pattern of forced patronage can be raised with the Department of Labor and Employment, and documenting the directive, any related deductions, and how the requirement was communicated will matter if the dispute has to be pursued formally.