Delhi High Court
Paramjeet Singh vs Bses Rajdhani Power Limited & Anr on 30 March, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on : 18.03.2026
Pronounced on : 30.03.2026
Uploaded on : 30.03.2026
+ W.P.(C) 7184/2018
PARAMJEET SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Karan Luthra and Mr. Shiven
Asthana, Advocates.
versus
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Vikas Mehta, Advocate, for
Respondent No. 1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT
1. The workman has preferred the present writ petition seeking to
impugn the award dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Labour Court, whereby
his claim application came to be dismissed.
2. In the claim application, the workman claimed that he had worked
with the “Management” on the post of Driver with effect from 14.12.2003 to
31.05.2012. The workman, along with the claim application, filed copies of
two identity cards issued by respondent no. 2 herein (Management 2) and
also a copy of the vehicular log dated 18.12.2003. His last drawn wages
were Rs.7,800/- per month. When the workman demanded legal facilities
like appointment letter, weekly off holiday, casual leave, his attendance to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM W.P.(C) 7184/2018 Page 1 of 8
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:30.03.2026
22:25:45
be marked in the attendance register, pay slip, leave book, attendance card,
ESIC, overtime, bonus, minimum wages as per Government policy, and
other facilities, his services were terminated on 01.06.2012. Though he
impleaded BSES Rajdhani Power Limited as well as M/s Team Lease Pvt.
Ltd. as Management 1 and 2 respectively, he used the common word
“Management” in his entire claim application. Both Managements 1
and 2 appeared and contested the claim.
3. Management 1, i.e. BSES Rajdhani Power Limited, denied the
employer-employee relationship, stating that the workman remained on
the payroll of Management 2. It was stated that the question of payment
of salary along with other benefits such as leave, PF, etc. by
Management-1 did not arise as the workman was never its employee.
4. Management 2, i.e. M/s Teamlease Services Pvt. Ltd., in its
written statement, claimed that they did not terminate the services of
the workman and that it was the workman who himself left the job with
effect from 19.05.2012 due to his deployment with other clients. It was
further claimed that the workman had not completed 240 days of
working during the year preceding the alleged termination. It was also
stated that Management 2 had a valid license under the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and the workman was
deployed with Management 1 as per the terms and conditions of the
agreement between them. Management 2 also claimed to have
regularly paid wages to the workman, and PF as well as ESI
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM W.P.(C) 7184/2018 Page 2 of 8
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:30.03.2026
22:25:45
contributions were stated to have been duly deducted therefrom and
deposited with the concerned departments.
5. Before this Court, while assailing the impugned award, learned
counsel for the workman contended that the Labour Court erred in
observing that the workman failed to discharge his burden of having
completed 240 days of service, as the workman had placed on record
copies of the identity cards issued to him which only showed that they
were valid for 12 months. It was next contended that the workman was
under the direction and supervision of Management 1 and, thus, the
Labour Court ought to have held that the employer-employee
relationship stood proved.
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Management 1 contended
that the claim application was rightly rejected as although the workman
arrayed both the Managements as parties, the claim application shows
that while the workman is claiming to be an employee of Management
1, he has not stated that the agreement between Management 1 and 2
was sham, illegal and camouflage to deprive the workman of legal
benefits of his employment.
7. Management 2 remained unrepresented despite service.
8. On the dispute being raised, the learned Labour Commissioner
forwarded the following reference:
“Whether the services of Sh. Paramjeet Singh S/o Sh. Narender Singh have
been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management; and if
so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this
respect?”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM W.P.(C) 7184/2018 Page 3 of 8
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:30.03.2026
22:25:45
9. A perusal of the claim application would show that the workman
has claimed to be the employee of Management 1. While Management
1 denied the relationship, Management 2 categorically admitted that the
workman was its employee. It further denied the termination and,
rather, stated that it was the workman who failed to join his duties,
thereby making out a case of voluntary relinquishment of service.
10. To claim continuous service of 240 days, the workman placed on
record only two identity cards. The Labour Court noted that the same
were not corroborative in nature and further noted that there was a
break in service. In this regard, a perusal of the reply filed by
Management 2 would show that it was stated that there was a break in
service as, after 30.04.2011, the workman rejoined only on 02.11.2011
and worked till 19.05.2012. No rejoinder was filed by the workman to
the said reply.
11. I find strength in the contention of the learned counsel for
Management 1 that no allegation is made with respect to the contract
between Managements 1 and 2 being sham and illegal. The terms of the
reference were restricted to determining whether the services of the
workman had been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably.
12. A perusal of the identity cards would show that the same were
issued by Management 2 for the workman being deployed with
Management 1 under a contract. On whether the workman, having been
deployed with Management 1, is entitled to claim employer-employee
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM W.P.(C) 7184/2018 Page 4 of 8
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:30.03.2026
22:25:45
relationship with Management 1, the Court takes note of the decision of
the Supreme Court in Ram Singh & Ors. Vs. Union Territory,
Chandigarh & Ors.1, wherein it was held that while “control” is one of
the important tests, it is not to be taken as the sole test. The relevant
observations are as under:
“15. In determining the relationship of employer and employee, no
doubt, ‘control’ is one of the important tests but is not to be taken as the
sole test. In determining the relationship of employer and employee all
other relevant facts and circumstances are required to be considered
including the terms and conditions of the contract. It is necessary to take a
multiple pragmatic approach weighing up all the factors for and against
an employment instead of going by the sole ‘test of control’. An integrated
approach is needed. ‘Integration’ test is one of the relevant tests. It is
applied by examining whether the person was fully integrated into the
employer’s concern or remained apart from and independent of it. The
other factors which may be relevant are – who has the power to select and
dismiss, to pay remuneration, deduct insurance contributions, organise the
work, supply tools and materials and what are the ‘mutual obligations’
between them (see Industrial Law, Third edition by I.T. Smith and JC
Wood, at pp 8 to 10).”
13. In Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs. Mahendra Prasad
Jakhmola and Others2, the Supreme Court explained the expression
“control and supervision”. The relevant extract is as under:
“22. The expression ‘control and supervision’ were further
explained with reference to an earlier judgment of this Court as follows:
(Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills case [Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills v. Bharat
Lal, (2011) 1 SCC 635 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 16] , SCC pp. 638-39, para
12)
’12. The expression ‘control and supervision’ in the context
of contract labour was explained by this Court in International
Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers’
Union [International Airport Authority of India v. International Air1
(2004) 1 SCC 126
2
(2019) 13 SCC 82Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM W.P.(C) 7184/2018 Page 5 of 8
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:30.03.2026
22:25:45
Cargo Workers’ Union, (2009) 13 SCC 374 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S)
257] thus: (SCC p. 388, paras 38-39)
’38. … if the contract is for supply of labour,
necessarily, the labour supplied by the contractor will work
under the directions, supervision and control of the
principal employer but that would not make the worker a
direct employee of the principal employer, if the salary is
paid by a contractor, if the right to regulate the
employment is with the contractor, and the ultimate
supervision and control lies with the contractor.
39. The principal employer only controls and
directs the work to be done by a contract labour, when such
labour is assigned/allotted/sent to him. But it is the
contractor as employer, who chooses whether the worker is
to be assigned/allotted to the principal employer or used
otherwise. In short, worker being the employee of the
contractor, the ultimate supervision and control lies with
the contractor as he decides where the employee will work
and how long he will work and subject to what conditions.
Only when the contractor assigns/sends the worker to work
under the principal employer, the worker works under the
supervision and control of the principal employer but that
is secondary control. The primary control is with the
contractor…’
23. From this judgment in Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills
case [Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills v. Bharat Lal, (2011) 1 SCC 635 :
(2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 16] , it is clear that Test No. 1 is not met on the facts
of this case as the contractor pays the workmen their wages. Secondly, the
principal employer cannot be said to control and supervise the work of the
employee merely because he directs the workmen of the contractor ‘what
to do’ after the contractor assigns/allots the employee to the principal
employer. This is precisely what para 12 of Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills
case [Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills v. Bharat Lal, (2011) 1 SCC 635 :
(2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 16] explains as being supervision and control of the
principal employer that is secondary in nature, as such control is
exercised only after such workman has been assigned to the principal
employer to do a particular work.
24. We may hasten to add that this view of the law has been
reiterated in Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd. [Balwant Rai
Saluja v. Air India Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 407 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 804] , as
follows: (SCC pp. 437-38, para 65)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM W.P.(C) 7184/2018 Page 6 of 8
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:30.03.2026
22:25:45
’65. Thus, it can be concluded that the relevant factors to
be taken into consideration to establish an employer-employee
relationship would include, inter alia:
(i) who appoints the workers;
(ii) who pays the salary/remuneration;
(iii) who has the authority to dismiss;
(iv) who can take disciplinary action;
(v) whether there is continuity of service; and
(vi) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there
exists complete control and supervision.
As regards extent of control and supervision, we have
already taken note of the observations in Bengal Nagpur Cotton
Mills case [Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills v. Bharat Lal, (2011) 1
SCC 635 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 16] , International Airport
Authority of India case [International Airport Authority of
India v. International Air Cargo Workers’ Union, (2009) 13 SCC
374 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 257] and Nalco case [NALCO
Ltd. v. Ananta Kishore Rout, (2014) 6 SCC 756 : (2014) 2 SCC
(L&S) 353] .’
14. Recently, in Kirloskar Brothers Limited Vs. Rancharan and
Ors.3, the Supreme Court has held as under:
“7. Even otherwise, as observed hereinabove, in the absence of a
notification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act unless there are allegations
or findings with regard to a contract being sham, private respondents
herein, who are as such the workmen/employee of the contractor, cannot
be held to be employees of the appellant and not of the contractor.
8. At this stage, the decision of this Court in SAIL v. National Union
Waterfront Workers [SAIL v. National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001)
7 SCC 1 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 1121] is required to be referred to. Following
two questions fell for consideration before this Court : (SCC p. 42, para
65)
’65. … A. whether the concept of automatic absorption of
contract labour in the establishment of the principal employer on
issuance of the abolition notification, is implied in Section 10 of the
CLRA Act; and
B. whether on a contractor engaging contract labour in connection
with the work entrusted to him by a principal employer, the3
(2023) 1 SCC 463Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM W.P.(C) 7184/2018 Page 7 of 8
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:30.03.2026
22:25:45
relationship of master and servant between him (the principal
employer) and the contract labour, emerges.'”
15. It is pertinent to note that during cross-examination, the workman
claimed that he was seeking no relief against Management 2 and, for
the said reason, Management 2 also did not lead any evidence.
16. On examining the claim application as well as the documents in
the form of identity cards and one vehicular log slip, and further
keeping in mind the specific stand of both the Managements, i.e.,
Management 1 and 2, the law as discussed above, as well as the scope
of interference in writ jurisdiction (Ref: Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S.
Radhakrishnan4), this Court finds no ground to interfere with the
impugned award, which is upheld.
17. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed and disposed of in
the above terms.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
(JUDGE)
MARCH 30, 2026
pmc
4
1963 SCC OnLine SC 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedPREM W.P.(C) 7184/2018 Page 8 of 8
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:30.03.2026
22:25:45
