Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(ii) There was non-compliance of provisions of the Act like providing facilities of canteen, rest room etc and the workmen were not issued employment cards.
(iii) Though the contract entered into between the petitioner and the Contractor was for watch and ward but clause 4.1 of the contract provided that work was not limited to watch and ward and workmen could be given such other duties as may be assigned to them from time to time. Therefore, the contract was uncertain and vague and contract was hit by Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act.

17. One of the reasons of holding the contract as sham and camouflage, given by the Tribunal is exercise of contract by the management. In Silver Jublee case 1973 II LLJ 495, Supreme Court pointed out that the test of control was no longer an exclusive test to decide employer-employee relationship vis-a-vis contractors' employees. There can be no magic formula for all cases and the court must perform a balancing operation weighing up factors which point in one direction and balancing them against those pointing in an opposite direction. The control test is not decisive. The Tribunal in this case relying on the provisions of the contract has held that petitioner was having overriding power and every activity was to be done as per directions of the petitioner from time to time, therefore, there was total administrative control and supervision Page 3743 of the petitioner. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the contract was vague and uncertain. It may be beneficial to go through the relevant provisions of the contract relied upon by the Tribunal: