Secondary employer control over contract labour does not establish a direct employer-employee relationship.

The Petitioner (workman) filed a claim application alleging he was employed as a Driver by "the Management" from December 2003 to May 2012, asserting his services were illegally terminated on June 1, 2012, after he demanded statutory benefits

He impleaded BSES Rajdhani Power Limited (Management 1) and M/s Teamlease Services Pvt. Ltd. (Management 2)

Management 1 denied the employer-employee relationship, stating the workman was on the payroll of Management 2

Management 2 admitted the workman was its employee deployed to Management 1 but claimed he voluntarily relinquished service and failed to complete 240 days of continuous service in the preceding year

The Labour Court dismissed the workman’s claim on March 28, 2018, leading to this writ petition

1. Whether the services of the workman were terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management

2. Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between the workman and the principal employer (Management 1) in the absence of allegations that the contract was a sham or camouflage

3. Whether the workman discharged the burden of proving 240 days of continuous service in the year preceding the alleged termination

The court relied on the "integration test" and "multiple pragmatic approach" established in Ram Singh & Ors. v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, noting that while "control" is a factor, it is not the sole test for employment

It applied the principles from Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola, which distinguishes between "primary control" (held by the contractor who pays and directs assignment) and "secondary control" (held by the principal employer who directs daily tasks)

per Kirloskar Brothers Limited v. Rancharan, the court held that in the absence of a notification under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, or a finding that a contract is a "sham," contract workers cannot be deemed employees of the principal employer

it noted the limited scope of interference under writ jurisdiction per Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan

The court found that the workman failed to discharge the burden of proving 240 days of continuous service, as the identity cards produced indicated a break in service and the workman failed to file a rejoinder to Management 2’s specific plea regarding service interruptions

Regarding the relationship with Management 1, the court observed that the workman’s claim application lacked any allegation that the contract between Management 1 and Management 2 was a "sham, illegal, or a camouflage" to deny benefits

Applying the BHEL precedent, the court reasoned that Management 1’s control was merely "secondary" in nature, as Management 2 issued the identity cards, paid wages, and held the primary right to regulate employment

The workman's admission during cross-examination that he sought no relief against Management 2 further weakened his stance, as Management 2 was the admitted employer

The High Court found no jurisdictional error or illegality in the Labour Court’s findings

Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the award dated March 28, 2018, was upheld