This research has been used in court decisions on fictitious employment contracts. A particularly notable case is that of Autoclenz v Belcher (2011) before the Supreme Court. In this case, the work of Professor Bogg and Professor Davies was the only academic work cited in Lord Clarke JSC`s decision. The complainants worked as a self-valet for Autoclenz, which was posing as an independent contractor. They paid their own taxes and national insurance. They signed a contract with a no-work clause and a substitution clause stipulating that they could force others to work on their behalf. As in the case of the National Westminster Bank plc v. Jones” it has been found that appearances are accompanied by dishonesty and the fact that there is a third party participation that can rely on the wisdom of a disposition. There is a strong presumption of holding a contract in appearance. The question now in contract Labour (regulation and abolition) 1970 (hereafter the CLRA Act) is what is a fictitious contract and what are the consequences of such a fictitious contract? In this context, the Gujarat Electricity Board, Ukai, Gujarat V.
Hind Mazdoor sabha (1995 (2) LLJ 790 (SC) case can be invoked, with the Apex Court noting, among other things, that “the power to abolish contract work under Section 10 of the Act only comes into play if there is a genuine contract. In other words, if there is no real contract and the so-called contract is a false pretence or a cover-up to hide reality, these provisions are not applicable. If, under these conditions, the workers concerned impose a labour dispute as an exemption, i.e. they must be considered workers of the main employer, the Court of Justice or the industry judge is competent to settle the dispute and grant the necessary discharge.” With respect to the contract referred to by the high-level court, this is the contract between the contractor and the principal employer. The Constitutional Bank of the High-Level Court confirmed this view in steel Authority of India vs. National Union Water Front Workers Union (2001(91) FLR 182 (SC) 2001 LLR 691 (SC)). In that case, which dealt with the issue of automatic absorption, the Tribunal also held that if the contract was not genuine, but merely camouflage, the so-called contract work should be treated as the worker of the main employer, who is instructed by the industrial warrant officer to regulate contract work services in the establishment concerned under the conditions set. The two main situations that determine SAIL are: the law prohibits fictitious contracts and provides for heavy penalties for employers who break the law. For each organization, this could include a fine of up to $51,000. Although there has not been much discussion in India, there have been several cases of allegations that the contract is a sham or not.