Industrial Court misconstrued the meaning of the terms `control and supervision' and held that as the officers of Appellant were giving some instructions to the first Respondent working as a guard, he was deemed to be working under the control and supervision of the Appellant. 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. Moreover the first Respondent should be denied any relief, as there is sufficient material to infer that he deliberately suppressed and misrepresented facts.
