RAM SINGH AND ORS. versus UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 357 · Decided: 07-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAM SINGH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 7, 2003 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Laws : 
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970-Contract labour 
employed with Government Administration-Control of the means and method C 
of work of contractor with the principal employer-Application before Central 
Administrative Tribunal for regularization of service-Application rejected as 
not maintainable-Writ Petition rejected by High Court-On appeal, held: 
Where control is with the principal employer, mere fact of formal employment 
by an independent contractor will not relieve the principal employer of his D 
liability-But, whether a particular relationship between employer and 
employee is genuine or a camouflage through the mode of contractor is a 
question of fact which is to be raised and proved before industrial adjudicator-
Hence the case is to be adjudicated through industrial forum. 
Employer and Employee relationship-Determination of-Criteria- E 
Discussed. 
Department of Engineering, Chandigarh Administration established 
a sub-station for maintaining electricity supply to Government Medical 
College and Hospital. Appellants who were trained electricians and skilled 
workmen were employed with the sub-station through different F 
contractors. They filed application before Central Administrative Tribunal 
seeking direction to the Administration to regularize their services in the 
Administration on the ground that their work at the sub-station was of 
perennial nature. The application was rejected on the ground that the 
Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the same as employees engaged G 
through contractor could not be held to be holders of 'civil post' as defined 
under Section 3(q) of Administrative Tribunals Act. 
Appellant-employees filed writ petition before High Court on the 
ground that their real employer was Engineering Department of the 
357 
H 
358 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A Administration as it exercised complete control over their work; and that 
agency of contractor was resorted to by the Administration in order to 
deny the employees the benefit of regular employment. High Court 
dismissed the petitions. 
In appeal to this Court appellants contended that in respect of 
B contracts awarded, the Department retained complete control of the 
employment work and continuance of service of the contract labour; and 
that their work being of permanent and perennial nature, employment 
through contractor was an unfair labour practice. 
Respondent contended that direct control of the Engineering 
C Department was only for the purpose of ensuring efficiency and quality 
of work; and that employment through contractor was a temporary 
arrangement till the Administration created requisite number of posts and 
decided to recruit employees on deputation or by direct recruitment. 
D 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
E 
HELD : I. Without ascertaining through the industrial forum, 
factual aspects of inter-se relationship between the Chandigarh 
Administration, the Contractor and the contract employees, no relief can 
be granted. (365-H; 366-A] 
2. Normally, the relationship of employer and employee does not exist 
between and employer and Contractor and servant of an independent 
Contractor. Where, however, an employer retains or assumes control over 
the means and method by which the work of a Contractor is to be done it 
may be said that the relationship between employer and the employee 
F exists between him and the servants of such a Contractor. In such a 
situation the mere fact of formal employment by an independent 
Contractor will not relieve the master of liability where the servant is, in 
fact, in his employment. In that event, it may be held that an independent 
Contractor is created or is operating as a subterfuge and the employee 
G will be regarded as the servant of the principal employer. Where a 
particular relationship between employer and employee is genuine or a 
camouflage through the mode of Contractor is essentially a question of 
fact to be determined on the basis of features of relationship, the written 
terms of employment, if any, and the actual nature of the employment. 
The actual nature of relationship concerning a particular employment 
H being essentially a question of fact, it has to be raised and proved before 
-
RAM SINGH v.UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH 
359 
an industrial adjudicator. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.