The Supreme Court ruled that treating supervisory control as definitive proof of employment is simplistic and legally flawed. It noted that the only supporting document presented by the respondents was proof of their posting at different locations, which was deemed insufficient to establish a direct master-servant relationship. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's orders that had remanded the matter to the Labour Court. It concluded that further investigation would be an "exercise in futility." The key takeaway from the judgment is that establishing an employment relationship requires clear documentary evidence of a direct master-servant relationship, not merely supervisory control.