Supreme Court Clarifies Tests to Determine Employer-Employee Relationship Under Industrial Laws

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has clarified the principles to determine employer–employee relationships under legislations such as the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Factories Act, 1948. The Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta elaborated on various tests evolved through decades of jurisprudence, providing guidance for courts, employers, and employees in disputes concerning service conditions, wages, and statutory benefits.

Case Background

The appeal arose from a dispute involving the U.P. Cooperative Bank, its canteen, and the employees of the canteen managed by a cooperative society.

• The cooperative society ran the bank’s canteen, with the bank providing partial subsidies and infrastructure.
• When the bank refused to enhance financial support, the cooperative society terminated the canteen employees.
• The employees approached the Labour Court seeking reinstatement, which was granted.
• The Allahabad High Court upheld this, holding that the bank was the employer due to its financial and infrastructural involvement.

The Supreme Court reversed these findings, emphasizing that financial support alone does not create an employer–employee relationship if the principal organization does not control or supervise the work of the employees.

Tests to Determine Employer–Employee Relationship

The Supreme Court explained that the existence of an employer–employee relationship is a mixed question of fact and law, dependent on control, supervision, integration, and economic dependence. The Court outlined four primary tests:

1. Control Test

The control test is the oldest method, rooted in common law and vicarious liability principles.

• It examines whether the hirer has control over what work is to be done and how it is done.
• Cited cases: Shivanandan Sharma v. Punjab National Bank Ltd. (AIR 1955 SC 404) and Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra (1957).
• The test distinguishes between a worker and an independent contractor, focusing on whether the work is performed for oneself or for another.

The Supreme Court noted that the degree of control may vary depending on the nature of work and that effective supervision need not always be absolute but sufficient for identifying an employment relationship.

2. Organisation (Integration) Test

Recognizing limitations of the control test in modern, specialized workplaces, the Court discussed the integration test:

• Introduced in Silver Jubilee Tailoring House v. Chief Inspector of Shops and Establishments (1974) 3 SCC 498.
• Evaluates how integrated a worker is into the principal business.
• The greater the integration, the stronger the evidence of an employer–employee relationship.
• Particularly relevant for professional and skilled workers where direct control may not be feasible.

The Supreme Court emphasized blending control and integration tests to move beyond the traditional master–servant concept toward a multifactorial approach.

3. Multifactor Test

The multifactor test considers a combination of indicators:

1. Control over the work and method of execution
2. Ownership of tools
3. Integration into the organization
4. Chance of profit and risk of loss
5. Power to hire and terminate
6. Payment of wages
7. Right to supervise and control
8. Extent of economic dependence

• Case: Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Marketing Society Ltd. v. State of T.N. (2004) 5 SCC 514
• The Court stressed that no single factor is decisive; the totality of circumstances must be considered.
• Sham or camouflage arrangements to disguise employment under contractors can be pierced by courts to recognize the principal employer.
• Case: Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills v. Bharat Lal (2011) 1 SCC 635 – key indicators: payment by principal and supervision/control over work.

4. Refined Multifactor Test

The Supreme Court noted the evolution of Indian jurisprudence toward a refined multifactor approach:

• Case: Sushilaben Indravadan Gandhi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 7 SCC 151
• Key factors include:
  1. Control over work and manner of execution
  2. Degree of integration into employer’s business
  3. Method of remuneration
  4. Economic dependence
  5. Whether work is conducted for oneself or a third party
• Unlike earlier cases such as Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd. (2014) 9 SCC 407, which emphasized “effective and absolute control,” the Court endorsed “sufficient degree of control” to account for diverse employment structures.

The Court clarified that the level of control required is fact-specific and cannot be determined by a rigid formula.

Supreme Court’s Holding in the Canteen Employee Case

Applying these principles, the Supreme Court concluded:

• The U.P. Cooperative Bank did not directly manage or supervise the canteen employees.
• The employees were appointed, paid, and managed by the cooperative society.
• The bank’s role was limited to providing infrastructure and partial financial support; there was no statutory or contractual obligation to run a canteen.
• Consequently, the Labour Court and Allahabad High Court erred in treating the bank as the employer.

Judgment: Appeals by U.P. Cooperative Bank allowed, High Court judgment dated 8 Oct 2012 set aside, and Labour Court award dated 14 Sep 1999 quashed.

Case Citation: General Manager, U.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd v. Achchey Lal & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1024

Key Takeaways

1. Financial support alone does not create an employer–employee relationship.
2. Control and integration are critical in determining employment status.
3. Multifactor analysis is essential; courts examine totality of circumstances.
4. Sham arrangements designed to misclassify employees as contractors can be pierced by courts.
5. Employment disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act or Factories Act require fact-specific examination.

This judgment is particularly relevant for HR professionals, labour courts, and industrial organizations, offering clarity on modern employment arrangements and statutory obligations.

Expert Commentary

Legal experts highlight that this ruling streamlines the assessment of employment relationships in India’s evolving labor market.

Advocate R.K. Menon, a labour law specialist, remarked:

“This judgment emphasizes the need to look beyond formal arrangements. Even if an organization provides financial or infrastructural support, the actual management and supervision of employees are determinative for legal recognition of employment.”

The judgment aligns with global labor jurisprudence, balancing employer flexibility and employee protection.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling provides authoritative guidance for courts, organizations, and workers in determining the existence of employer–employee relationships. By emphasizing control, integration, and economic dependence, and adopting a refined multifactorial approach, the Court ensures a fair, fact-sensitive analysis that reflects the complexity of modern workplaces.

This decision will likely influence industrial dispute cases, statutory benefits claims, and contractual employment interpretations, reinforcing clarity and consistency in Indian labor law.

Also Read

Supreme Court Reiterates: Hindu Succession Act Doesn’t Apply to Scheduled Tribes

UAPA | Supreme Court: Furnishing Written Grounds of Arrest Mandatory, Remand Court’s Explanation Not Sufficient