Contract labour disputes require factual proof of camouflage before writ relief or regularisation can be granted.

The existence of an employer-employee relationship between a principal employer and contract labour cannot be determined by the control test alone; relevant factors include the terms of engagement, power to appoint and dismiss, wage payment, organisation of work, supply of tools, and integration into the establishment. Where the alleged contract is said to be a camouflage, the issue is ordinarily one of fact for industrial adjudication. In the absence of a statutory prohibition on contract labour and without a factual finding that the contractor was a mere ruse, writ relief for regularisation or similar benefits is not available on that basis alone.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants, engaged through contractors for maintenance work at the sub-station, could be treated as employees of the Chandigarh Administration and granted regularisation or other relief in writ proceedings without first establishing the true nature of the employment before the industrial forum.

Analysis: The relationship of employer and employee cannot be determined by the control test alone. The correct approach is to consider all relevant facts, including the terms of engagement, the power to select and dismiss, payment of wages, organisation of work, supply of tools and materials, and the extent of integration into the establishment. Where the existence of a genuine contract or a camouflage is in dispute, the issue is essentially one of fact and must ordinarily be investigated by the industrial adjudicator. In the absence of a prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and without a factual finding from the industrial forum that the contractor was a mere ruse, relief could not be granted in writ jurisdiction. The earlier Constitution Bench ruling governing contract labour was treated as decisive.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to the relief sought in these appeals; the proper remedy was industrial adjudication, if available in law.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, but the employees were left free to pursue the remedy of industrial adjudication for determination of the true employment relationship and any consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the true relationship between the principal employer, contractor, and workmen is disputed, and no statutory prohibition on contract labour exists, the issue of camouflage or genuine contract is a question of fact to be decided by industrial adjudication, not by writ court on the basis of control alone.

---