Contract labour and back wages: direct employment requires proof of sham arrangement, control, and wage payment; suppression defeats relief.

A contract labour arrangement is not treated as sham or nominal unless the workman proves that the contract was a camouflage and establishes direct payment by the principal employer together with primary control and supervision; mere deployment instructions are insufficient. The Court also held that back wages and related monetary relief could be denied where the workman was otherwise employed, received adequate remuneration, and suppressed material facts such as prior employment and continuous unemployment claims. On those findings, the direct-employment claim failed and monetary relief was refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the contract labour arrangement was sham or nominal so as to treat the workman as a direct employee of the principal employer. (ii) Whether the workman was entitled to relief including back wages in view of his subsequent employment and suppression of material facts.

Issue (i): Whether the contract labour arrangement was sham or nominal so as to treat the workman as a direct employee of the principal employer.

Analysis: The claim that the arrangement was a camouflage had to be established by the workman. The Court held that the Industrial Court wrongly placed the burden on the employer to prove that wages were not paid directly by it. On the evidence, the workman did not prove direct payment by the principal employer or that he worked under its direct control and supervision. Mere issuance of some instructions in the course of deployment did not amount to the primary control required to convert contract labour into direct employment.

Conclusion: The finding that the workman was a direct employee of the principal employer was unsustainable and was answered against the workman.

Issue (ii): Whether the workman was entitled to relief including back wages in view of his subsequent employment and suppression of material facts.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 65(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 bars wages during the pendency of proceedings where the employee has been otherwise employed and receiving adequate remuneration. The Court found material suppression and misrepresentation because the workman did not disclose his address and asserted continuous unemployment, while the record showed that he had been employed elsewhere and was drawing substantially higher wages. That conduct furnished an additional reason to deny monetary relief.

Conclusion: The claim for back wages and related relief was not maintainable and was answered against the workman.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the workman's application was dismissed, leaving the employer with complete success in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A contract labourer is not treated as a direct employee of the principal employer unless the labourer proves that the contract is a sham and establishes direct payment of wages and primary control and supervision by the principal employer; where the employee has been otherwise employed and has suppressed material facts, monetary relief under the wage pendency provision can also be denied.

---