https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467720 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. en-us Tue, 14 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Mar 2026 12:03:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467720 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 14 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467720