As in “National Westminster Bank plc v. Jones”[9], it was found that appearances were accompanied by dishonesty and that there was a participation of the third party who can count on the intelligence of a disposition. There is a strong presumption of keeping a contract as Sham. 2. Where it is proved before the operating court that the contractor is mandated and that his mandate is concealed to deprive the workers of the various legal economic rights, in that case the contract between the contractor and the main employer shall be considered a false contract. In the case of a contract considered to be a fictitious contract, the labour judge will order the main employer to regularize the subcontractors` service. Part of the audit should indicate that Fair Work Australia has increased powers where fictitious contracts have been concluded, including the granting of injunctions. One may be curious to see how this legal field will evolve over the next twelve months. How your employee or contractor agreements are evaluated can affect obligations and possible penalties for your business. Ultimately, a court will consider the content of the agreement and not its form – meaning that no matter how you call the agreement, the courts will consider the characteristics and style of the work, the relative bargaining power of the parties, and whether the total salary is what an employee might receive in the same job.
It emerges from the above discussion that in addition to the “control test” or the “organizational test”, several other factors, such as who is the decision-making authority; (b) who is the paymaster; (c) who may be dismissed; (d) the duration of the alternative service; (e) the extent of control and supervision; (f) the nature of the activity, for example, whether it is professional or skilled work; (g) the type of establishment; (h) the right to challenge; determine the relationship between the employer and the worker in the dispute relating to the fictitious contract. [see Workmen of Nilgiri co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others [2004 (2) LLJ 253 (SC) = 2004 (101) FLR 138 (SC)= 2004 (2) LLN 68 (SC) = 2004 LLR 351 (SC)). This year, the Fair Work Ombudsman (“FWO”) is taking steps to identify and reduce employers who enter into fictitious contractual agreements. In this article, we make proposals to avoid conflicting with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the “FW Act”). The question that arises in the context of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 (hereinafter the clRA Act) is what is a false contract and what are the consequences of such a false contract? In this context, it may be appropriate to refer the case of Gujarat Electricity Board, Ukai, Gujarat V. Hind Mazdoor sabha (1995 (2) LLJ 790 (SC), the Supreme Court having held, inter alia, that “the power to abolish temporary agency work under section 10 of the Act applies only in the case of a genuine contract. In other words, if there is no real treaty and what is called a forgery or camouflage to hide the reality, the aforementioned provisions are not applicable. Where, in such circumstances, the workers concerned engage in a labour dispute to remedy the fact that they should be regarded as workers of the main employer, the labour court or judge shall have jurisdiction to rule on the dispute and the granting of the necessary remedy. This is the contract to which the Supreme Court referred, the contract between the contractor and the main employer.
. . .
Recent Comments