Real control test in labour law treats disguised contractors as employers' agents where supervision is retained.

Employer-employee status turns on real control and supervision, not the label used in a labour arrangement. Where the employer retains the right to direct not only the work done but also the manner of doing it, a purported contractor may be treated as a mere agent or branch manager if the arrangement shows no real independence. On the facts described, supply of raw materials, fixed pricing, restricted labour engagement, and the payment structure showed a camouflage, so the bidi rollers were treated as workmen and the industrial dispute was maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bidi rollers engaged through the so-called contractors were employees of the appellants and whether an industrial dispute existed within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Analysis: The decisive test for determining the relationship of employer and employee is whether the employer has the right to direct not only what work is to be done but also the manner in which it is to be done, though the extent of control varies with the nature of the industry. On the facts found, the so-called contractors were under the appellants' control, had no real independence, and merely acted as agents or branch managers. The arrangement of supply of raw materials, fixed pricing, restricted engagement of labour, and payment structure showed that the system was a camouflage and that the appellants retained the real control over the bidi workers.

Conclusion: The bidi rollers were held to be the appellants' workmen, the industrial dispute was maintainable, and the challenge to the tribunal's award failed.

Ratio Decidendi: The existence of an employer-employee relationship depends on real control and supervision over the work, and a contractual arrangement designed to conceal that relationship will not prevent the workers from being treated as employees.

---