Sham contractor arrangement and 240-day service findings upheld where principal employer exercised real control over workers.

Workers engaged through an intermediary were treated as employees of the principal employer because the evidence showed supervision by the principal employer's staff, attendance control by its employees, and an artificial contractor arrangement used to avoid labour obligations; the finding that the intermediary was a sham was upheld. The concurrent factual finding that the workmen had completed more than 240 days of service was also left undisturbed because no perversity, lack of evidence, or illegality was shown. The appeals therefore failed, and the award and connected orders were maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the workmen were in the direct employment of the appellant and the contractor arrangement was a sham or camouflage; (ii) Whether the finding of illegal termination for non-compliance with the 240 days requirement under the applicable labour law could be disturbed.

Issue (i): Whether the workmen were in the direct employment of the appellant and the contractor arrangement was a sham or camouflage.

Analysis: The evidence accepted by the Labour Court and affirmed by the High Court showed that the workmen were engaged in the appellant's premises, their work was supervised by the appellant's own employees, attendance was maintained by the appellant's staff, and the records were not produced or were destroyed, justifying adverse inference. The arrangement through intermediaries was found to be artificial and intended to avoid labour obligations. The principle applied was that where the real employer exercises economic and functional control and the intermediary is only a facade, the true employer cannot avoid liability.

Conclusion: The finding that the workmen were the appellant's employees and that the contractor arrangement was sham was upheld, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the finding of illegal termination for non-compliance with the 240 days requirement under the applicable labour law could be disturbed.

Analysis: The challenge on continuous service did not dislodge the concurrent factual finding that the workmen had worked for more than 240 days in the relevant period. No perversity, no evidence, or illegality was shown in the concurrent factual determinations of the Labour Court and the High Court, and there was no basis to interfere in appeal.

Conclusion: The finding regarding satisfaction of the 240 days requirement was upheld, against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on all substantive grounds and the concurrent factual findings were left undisturbed, resulting in dismissal of the challenge to the award and connected orders.

Ratio Decidendi: A worker engaged through an intermediary will be treated as the employee of the principal employer where the intermediary is a sham or camouflage and the principal employer exercises real control over the work, especially when concurrent factual findings are supported by evidence and no perversity is shown.

---