General Manager, U.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Achchey Lal 2025 INSC 1175 -Industrial Disputes Act-Factories Act
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -Factories Act, 1948-To ascertain or rather the relevant factors to be taken into consideration to establish employer/employee relationship would include, inter alia i.e. (a) who appoints the workers; (b) who pays the salaries/remuneration; (3) who has the authority to dismiss; 11 (4) who can take disciplinary action; (5) whether there is continuity of service; and (6) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision? (Para 37) [Context: In this case, SC held: If there is a mere obligation to provide facilities to run a canteen, the canteen would not form part of the establishment. If the Bank is discharging the same as a mere obligation, it permits to run a canteen and at the same time, it is not having any control or right of supervision over the staff, the canteen will not form part of the establishment. Likewise, the nature and character of management, and the interest shown by the Management in having control and supervision over the running of the canteen also has to be taken into consideration. The material on record would indicate that the Bank had nothing to do with the working of the canteen. The only contribution made by the Management was to provide infrastructure and subsidy to the Society. If there is total lack of evidence on this point and what the Bank discharged was only an obligation to provide a facility, under no stretch of imagination can it be said that the canteen staff is also part of the establishment, i.e., the Bank.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ; Factories Act, 1948 -Tests to determine employer employee relationship to be kept in mind while deciding matters arising from legislations like Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Factories Act, 1948 Etc discussed: Control Test (i) The control test postulates that when the hirer has control over the work assigned and the manner in which it is to be done, an employer-employee relationship is established. The control test is derived from common law application in vicarious liability claims - Organisation test The organisation test looks at the degree of integration in the work committed in the hirer’s primary business with the understanding that the higher the level of integration, the more likely the worker is to be an employee. A combination of control and integration tests allows the professional workers to be classified as employees, notwithstanding a lack of control over the manner of work. Furthermore, the existence and potential use of factors beyond the control and integration in future cases was also recognised. This opened the path for the multifactor test- Multiple Factor test (i) The multifactor test includes: a) Control b) Ownership of the tools c) Integration/Organisation d) Chance of profit e) Risk of loss f) the master's power of selecting his servant g) the payment of wages or other remuneration h) The master's right to control the method of doing the work, and i) The master's right of suspension or dismissal.
Case Info
Case Details
- Case name: General Manager, U.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Achchey Lal & Anr.
- Neutral citation: 2025 INSC 1175.
- Coram: J.B. Pardiwala, J.; Sandeep Mehta, J.
- Judgment date: 11 September 2025.
Caselaws and Citations
- Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 407.
- Employers in relation to the Management of Reserve Bank of India v. Workmen, (1996) 3 SCC 267.
- State Bank of India v. State Bank of India Canteen Employees’ Union (Bengal Circle), (2000) 5 SCC 531.
- Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers’ Union, (2000) 4 SCC 245.
- Parimal Chandra Raha v. LIC of India, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 611.
- Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. v. Shramik Sena, (1999) 6 SCC 439.
- Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1.
- Barat Fritz Werner Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2001) 4 SCC 498.
- Hari Shankar Sharma v. Artificial Limbs Mfg. Corpn., (2002) 1 SCC 337.
- NTPC Ltd. v. Karri Pothuraju, (2003) 7 SCC 384.
- Mishra Dhatu Nigam Ltd. v. M. Venkataiah, (2003) 7 SCC 488.
- Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees Union v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2005) 5 SCC 51.
- Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mktg. Society Ltd. v. State of T.N., (2004) 5 SCC 514.
- Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills v. Bharat Lal, (2011) 1 SCC 635.
- Sushilaben Indravadan Gandhi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2021) 7 SCC 151.
- Shivanandan Sharma v. Punjab National Bank Ltd., AIR 1955 SC 404.
- Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra, (1957) 1 LLJ 477.
- Silver Jubilee Tailoring House v. Chief Inspector of Shops and Establishments, (1974) 3 SCC 498.
- Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Ptg. Co. Ltd. v. Ram Tahel Ramanand, (1972) II LLJ 165.
- J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. v. Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, (1963) II LLJ 436.
- Employees in relation to Punjab National Bank v. Ghulam Dastagir, (1978) I LLJ 312 (SC).
Statutes / Laws Referred
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
- Factories Act, 1948 (including Section 46; various state Factory Rules referenced, e.g., A.P. Factories Rules, 1950, Rules 65 and 71).
- Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (Section 10(1) context).
- Cooperative Societies Act, 1912.