Employer control test determines employment status where intermediary staff remain under direct direction and supervision.

Where an intermediary works under the employer's control and the employer retains decisive authority over appointment, dismissal, leave, discipline, remuneration approval and day-to-day supervision, the controlling test is the right to direct how the work is done. On that basis, the Treasurers were servants of the Bank and their nominees in the Cash Department were also employees of the Bank. The industrial tribunal therefore had jurisdiction to grant relief, and the appellant's reinstatement with back wages was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was an employee of the Bank or of the Treasurers, and whether the industrial tribunal had jurisdiction to grant relief on that basis.

Analysis: The agreement between the Bank and the Treasurers showed that the Treasurers acted under the Bank's control and direction in the Cash Department, with the Bank retaining decisive control over appointment, dismissal, leave, discipline, remuneration approval, and the day-to-day working of the staff. The controlling test was who had the right to direct the manner in which the work was done. On that footing, the Treasurers were servants of the Bank and their nominees in the Cash Department were likewise employees of the Bank. The basic jurisdictional premise adopted by the Appellate Tribunal was therefore incorrect.

Conclusion: The appellant was an employee of the Bank, and the industrial tribunal had jurisdiction to grant relief.

Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded, and the award restoring him with back wages stood upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the alleged intermediary is itself under the employer's control and the employer retains the right to direct the manner of work, the workers engaged through that intermediary may still be the employer's employees.

---