Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (1.21 seconds)Bank Of Baroda vs Ghemarbhai Harjibhai Rabari on 17 March, 2005
52. Therefore, irrespective of whichever test is applied, whether it be the
control test, or the integration test or any of the other tests, the above facts
clearly show that the functions performed by the drivers was integral to the
everyday working of the bank. The documents establish the existence of
employer-employee relationship and that the drivers were the employees of
the Bank. They were not retained through an independent contractor and that
is not even the case of the Bank. The Bank's case that the drivers were
exclusively working for Executives is also negated, as it has been proved, on
record, that the drivers would continue to remain in the same place
irrespective of the transfer or retirement of the Executive and they would be
placed under different Executives or the incumbent. The case of the Bank that
they were employees of the Executives is thus belied.
Balwant Rai Saluja & Anr Etc.Etc vs Air India Ltd.& Ors on 13 November, 2013
"61. Thus, it can be concluded that the relevant
factors to be taken into consideration to establish
an employer-employee relationship would include,
inter alia, (i) who appoints the workers; (ii) who
pays the salary/remuneration; (iii) who has the
authority to dismiss; (iv) who can take disciplinary
action; (v) whether there is continuity of service;
and (vi) extent of control and supervision, i.e.
whether there exists complete control and
supervision. As regards, extent of control and
supervision, we have already taken note of the
observations in Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills case
(supra), the International Airport Authority of India
case (supra) and the NALCO case (supra).
Sushilaben Indravadan Gandhi vs The New India Assurance Company Limited on 15 April, 2020
24. A conspectus of all the aforesaid judgments would
show that in a society which has moved away from
being a simple agrarian society to a complex modern
society in the computer age, the earlier simple test of
W.P.(C) 3269/2018 & connected matters Page 19 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATHIBA M SINGH
Signing Date:04.12.2020 16:12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:04.12.2020
17:02:00
control, whether or not actually exercised, has now
yielded more complex tests in order to decide complex
matters which would have factors both for and against
the contract being a contract of service as against a
contract for service. The early 'control of the
employer' test in the sense of controlling not just the
work that is given but the manner in which it is to be
done obviously breaks down when it comes to
professionals who may be employed. A variety of cases
come in between cases which are crystal clear - for
example, a master in a school who is employed like
other employees of the school and who gives music
lessons as part of his employment, as against an
independent professional piano player who gives
music lessons to persons who visit her premises.
Equally, a variety of cases arise between a ship's
master, a chauffeur and a staff reporter, as against a
ship's pilot, a taxi driver and a contributor to a
newspaper, in order to determine whether the person
employed could be said to be an employee or an
independent professional. The control test, after
moving away from actual control of when and how
work is to be performed to the right to exercise control,
is one in a series of factors which may lead to an
answer on the facts of a case slotting such case either
as a contract of service or a contract for service. The
test as to whether the person employed is integrated
into the employer's business or is a mere accessory
thereof is another important test in order to determine
on which side of the line the contract falls. The three-
tier test laid down by some of the English judgments,
namely, whether wage or other remuneration is paid
by the employer; whether there is a sufficient degree
of control by the employer and other factors would be
a test elastic enough to apply to a large variety of
cases. The test of who owns the assets with which the
work is to be done and/or who ultimately makes a
profit or a loss so that one may determine whether a
W.P.(C) 3269/2018 & connected matters Page 20 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATHIBA M SINGH
Signing Date:04.12.2020 16:12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:04.12.2020
17:02:00
business is being run for the employer or on one's own
account, is another important test when it comes to
work to be performed by independent contractors as
against piece-rated labourers. Also, the economic
reality test laid down by the U.S decisions and the test
of whether the employer has economic control over the
workers' subsistence, skill and continued employment
can also be applied when it comes to whether a
particular worker works for himself or for his
employer.
Ongc Ltd vs Petroleum Coal Labour Union & Ors on 17 April, 2015
Thus, according to him, reliance upon
judgment of ONGC v. Petroleum Coal Labour Union (2015) 6 SCC 494 by
the Tribunal, may not be correct as it may not be good law anymore.
Ram Singh And Others vs Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors on 7 November, 2003
In Ram Singh and Ors. v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and Ors.,
(2004) 1 SCC 126, the Supreme Court has held that the actual nature of the
relationship ought to be established before the Tribunal, as the same is a
question of fact. The Supreme Court further held that the integration test was
one of the relevant tests, and even though the formal employment is by an
independent contractor, management is not relieved of its liability. The Court
needs to discern as to whether the relationship is being camouflaged in any
manner.
Workmen Of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt.Society ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 5 February, 2004
42. Both sides have cited a large number of cases in support of their
respective arguments. The various tests to establish as to whether an
employer-employee relationship exists or not, are well settled. The same need
not be reiterated. The control test, the integration test etc. are also well
established. In Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Ltd. v. State of Tamil
Nadu and Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 514, the Supreme Court held that the control
test and organization are not the only factors set to be decisive. Various other
factors would have to be considered as well. The Court held that:
Oil And Natural Gas Corporation vs Krishan Gopal on 7 February, 2020
57. For whatever reasons, the drivers who were similarly placed have
already been regularized and they as well as the others have rendered long
service. Each of the drivers, in these petitions, has been employed with the
Bank for at least 10 years. Considering the long duration of service and the
fact that they are clearly employees of the Bank, their services deserve to be
regularized in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Oil and
Natural Gas Corporation v. Krishan Gopal (supra).