Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
In some judgments, engaging contractors in core activities without proper compliance or selection procedures has been deemed improper, especially when the activity is essential and ongoing, indicating that such practices may be legally impermissible or require strict regulation ["PARMOD MALIK vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. - Delhi"].
Legal principles and regulatory insights
The appointment of contractors without proper procedures, or in activities that are inherently core, can be challenged as illegal or against statutory provisions, emphasizing the importance of compliance with legal frameworks governing contractor employment ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 71575"].
Analysis and Conclusion
In today's competitive business landscape, many companies in India consider to contractors to cut costs and enhance flexibility. But what about contractors performing core business activities? Is it legally permissible under Indian law? This question often arises for in manufacturing, energy, and services sectors. Generally, engaging contract labour for core activities is restricted to protect workers from exploitation and ensure direct employment for essential functions. This blog post dives into the legal framework, primarily the (CLRA), judicial tests, exceptions, and practical risks. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice—consult a lawyer for your situation. 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16855 2016 0 Supreme(AP) 278
The permissibility of appointing contractors hinges on distinguishing core activities from non-core ones. Under CLRA, is defined as any activity for which the establishment is set up, including essential or necessary activities integral to it. 2016 0 Supreme(AP) 166 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16855 For instance:
is typically allowed only for non-core functions. Courts emphasize preventing sham arrangements where contractors are used to disguise direct employment. 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 4199
prohibits contract labour in core activities, promoting abolition where feasible. must register under Section 7, and contractors need licenses specifying . 2015 0 Supreme(All) 1551 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 4199
However, exceptions exist, especially via state amendments like Andhra Pradesh's changes (applicable statewide post-bifurcation):
The may also exempt via notification, though some prohibit it (e.g., security at ONGC sites). 2016 0 Supreme(AP) 166
Courts scrutinize contracts using to detect shams. In Balwant Rai Saluja, the outlined key factors:
The nature or extent of control which is requisite to establish the relationship of employer and employee must necessarily vary from business to business. 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 2005 If workers predate contractor registration or perform core tasks (e.g., ITI/diploma holders in production) under the principal's ESI/PF code, it's likely a sham. No exists between contract workers and in genuine cases. 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 4199
Industrial Estate''''s & General Workers Union (CITU) VS Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary Labour and Employment Department Fort St. George - Madras (2020)
determine employment status: The determination of employment relationships and the validity of contracts lies within the jurisdiction of the industrial adjudicator, particularly when claims of are raised. 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 2005
Consequences of shams include , , and parity with direct employees. 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 4199
is defined as contracting non-core jobs to external providers without detailed instructions—the buyer specifies results, supplier delivers. No direct control over methods.
Industrial Estate''''s & General Workers Union (CITU) VS Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary Labour and Employment Department Fort St. George - Madras (2020)
2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 2576Core/ (e.g., police operations) cannot be outsourced. 2019 0 Supreme(P&H) 779 2018 0 Supreme(UK) 320
| Sector | Core Activities (Prohibited) | Non-Core (Permissible) ||--------|------------------------------|-------------------------|| Manufacturing/Energy (e.g., ONGC) | Production, notified security | Ad hoc security, housekeeping 2016 0 Supreme(AP) 166 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16855 | | Electricity Distribution | Core assets requiring guarantees (need consent) 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 519 | Non-regulated assets || Customs Couriers | Door-to-door transport, clearance | Pick-up/delivery (with permission) 2019 0 Supreme(Del) 1513
Future Express vs Union of India - Delhi (2019)
|| Public Services | 2019 0 Supreme(P&H) 779 2018 0 Supreme(UK) 320 | Routine tasks |In tenders, contracts must clarify no agency/partnership: The contract agreements clarify that the same do not create any agency/partnership/joint ventures. 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 357 This reinforces contractor independence. 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 356
Non-compliance invites:
Future Express vs Union of India - Delhi (2019)
EPF/ESI issues arise if contractors evade dues, with centralsied accounts scrutinized. 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 597
Contractors for core activities are generally impermissible under CLRA Section 10, except for exigencies like intermittent work. Focus on:
Recommendations:- Secure registrations/licenses for non-core explicitly.- Document exceptions/exigencies.- Audit supervision to avoid sham findings.- Use clear contract clauses on independence. 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 357
Businesses should prioritize compliance to mitigate risks and penalties. For tailored advice, engage labour law experts. Legislative clarity on ambiguities (e.g., guarantees) is needed. 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16855 2016 0 Supreme(AP) 278 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 4199 2016 0 Supreme(AP) 166
Key References:- 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16855: CLRA amendments, core definitions.- 2016 0 Supreme(AP) 278: Section 10 exceptions.- 2016 0 Supreme(AP) 166: Notifications.- 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 4199: Sham factors.- Others as cited.
#ContractLabourIndia, #CoreActivities, #LabourLaw
of the Board being generation of electricity and maintenance of track being anciliary activity would not lead the Court to hold that the activity and business was a core activity of the Board which was essential and vital to the operation so as to suggest the engagement of contractor’s workers as being ... The railway track was used for transportation of coal and other materials and its maintenance therefore cannot be said to be a core activity of the Board. ... The first criteria that the Tribunal in light of the evidence considered was ....
The positions at EMRE fall into “core” or “non-core” positions. As described by the Company, “core” positions are those that are directly associated with EMRE’s research and business functions. 3 Support roles such as security and materials delivery jobs are defined as “non-core” positions. ... The Union claims EMRE was attempting to permanently fill bargaining unit positions with contractors, and 3 Appx. at 56. 4 Whether the person who departed was “core” or “non-#....
As held by a Division Bench of this Court in General Manager, CORE, Allahabad v. JV Engineering Associate Civil Engineering Contractors, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 2892, the written agreement must happen at a time subsequent to the disputes having arisen between the parties to the arbitration agreement. ... Appellant is engaged in the business of developing and operating commercial projects and malls. ... Respondents also contended that no express consent was obtained from the respondents for appointing the Sole Arbitrator. ......
The Division Bench recognized this as the core of its opinion and we respectfully concur. ... The Division Bench thereafter noted in para 10 that on the leased lands petrol pumps were established by appointing M&H Contractors and these retail outlets were called „Company Owned Company Operated‟ (COCO) outlets, ... a misnomer for the reason these outlets were actually operated by M&H Contractors. ... The Division Bench thereafter noted that from the pleadings of the parties before it, it was clear that: ....
Eastman claims that the plaintiffs, though admittedly independent contractors, were injured while performing maintenance work that was “part of [Eastman’s] trade, business or occupation.” ... Courts, in other words, must “focus initially on what the owner decided is part of its business.” Id. (emphasis added). At core, “what is or is not ‘part of’ the owner’s business is a question of business judgment, not law.” Id. ... ....
Eastman claims that the plaintiffs, though admittedly independent contractors, were injured while performing maintenance work that was “part of [Eastman’s] trade, business or occupation.” ... Courts, in other words, must “focus initially on what the owner decided is part of its business.” Id. (emphasis added). At core, “what is or is not ‘part of’ the owner’s business is a question of business judgment, not law.” Id. ... ....
Eastman claims that the plaintiffs, though admittedly independent contractors, were injured while performing maintenance work that was “part of [Eastman’s] trade, business or occupation.” ... Courts, in other words, must “focus initially on what the owner decided is part of its business.” Id. (emphasis added). At core, “what is or is not ‘part of’ the owner’s business is a question of business judgment, not law.” Id. ... ....
They were employed in core production activities on a day-to-day basis throughout the year. Work allocation was done by supervisors of the petitioner–Management. 4.2. ... A perusal of the list of contractors indicates that there are five existing contractors, of which two are the licensed contractors in question. ... The petitioner–Management further contended that the private respondents are on the rolls of the licensed contractors; their work was supervised and controlled by the contractors#....
The nature or extent of control which is requisite to establish the relationship of employer and employee must necessarily vary from business to business and is by its very nature incapable of precise definition. ... It is claimed that the nature of work of the workers is that of regular employees of the management and the jobs are perennial in nature and intrinsically, inseparably and directly connected with the core manufacturing activity of the management. ... As per the petitioner, the aforesaid demand notice was replied by the petit....
-6 Scope Office, Complex, 7 Lodhi Road New Delhi and the provisions of the Company Act 1956 and having its Registered office at Core ... -6 Scope Office, Complex, 7 Lodhi Road New Delhi and the provisions of the Company Act 1956 and having its Registered Office at Aluminium Sadan, Scope Office Complex, 7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003 and also carrying on business
He vehemently denied the submission of Mr. Kumar that the respondent refused to provide information. The respondent had duly disclosed the names and details of the contractor/sub-contractors and thereafter it was incumbent on the Adjudicating Authority to ensure the presence and attendance of such contractors/sub-contractors. The power vested in the Commissioner to summon such contractors/sub-contractors was not exercised by him for reasons best known to him, despite date, facts and figures being provided by the respondent. He stated that once it is conceded by the Department that ....
3. The first respondent invited e-tenders for appointing handling and transport contractors and road transport contractors. The 2nd respondent’s bid was admittedly more competitive. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent had submitted their bids.
In other words, a person, indisputably bound to do a business as a Contractor under a owner, cannot have a say in respect of the terms and conditions inviting such contractors to do such business. At the same time, if the trade or business of such person is in the nature of doing under somebody or on behalf of somebody by way of contract, then such person cannot dictate terms as to how the owner of such business has to carry on such business. If such right is either assumed or conferred, it would only result in allowing encroachment by a third party on the exclusive domain ....
The contract agreements clarify that the same do not create any agency/partnership/joint ventures or joint relationship between the parties. The contract agreements render the contractors responsible for the acts, default or negligent of their agencies, servants or workmen. All employees/representatives or sub-contractors engaged by the contractors in performing the contract work would be under their complete control and would not be deemed to be employees of the corporation and that nothing in the contract agreements or in any sub-contract, if awarded by the contractors would be c....
The contract agreements clarify that the same do not create any agency/partnership/joint ventures or joint relationship between the parties. The contract agreements, in clear terms stipulate that the employees of the contractors and/or their subcontractors, if any, although working at the discretion of the Corporation would remain the employees of the contractors and such working arrangement would not in any way create or be construed to create an employer-employee relationship between them and the Corporation. All employees/representatives or subcontractors engaged by the contract....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
