Documentation
We draft a consultant or service agreement structured to reflect a genuine contractor relationship in substance, deliverables-based payment, IP assignment, and a misclassification-risk read of your brief before drafting, so a 'consultant' doesn't quietly become an employee in a dispute later.
A consultant or service agreement structured to reflect a genuine contractor relationship in substance, deliverables-based payment, IP assignment, and a misclassification-risk read of your brief before drafting, so a 'consultant' doesn't quietly become an employee in a dispute later.
Indian courts don't decide whether someone is a contractor or an employee by reading the contract's title. They look at what actually happened: who controlled the work, who supplied the tools, how payment was structured, and how integrated the person was into the business. A consultant agreement that's drafted like an employment contract with a different label doesn't hold up.
This service drafts the agreement to match a genuine contractor relationship in substance, and flags the terms that would push it toward employment before they go into the draft.
Scope
We structure the agreement around defined deliverables and invoice-based payment rather than a salary slip, one of the practical indicators courts look at when deciding whether a relationship is genuinely a consultancy.
Section 17(c) of the Copyright Act applies only to a genuine contract of service (employment). A contractor's work is governed by a contract for service instead, so it stays personally owned by them unless the agreement assigns it explicitly.
Fixed monthly pay, exclusivity, company-supplied equipment, set hours, and day-to-day supervision are all tells that flip a 'consultant' into an employee in substance. We flag these in your brief before they go into the draft, rather than paper over them.
Specifics
Two Supreme Court cases anchor how Indian courts read this. Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra (1957) set the control test: the right to control reaches beyond what work gets done, into the manner in which it gets done. Silver Jubilee Tailoring House v. Chief Inspector of Shops and Establishments (1973) added a multi-factor read for skilled and professional work, where control alone doesn't capture the relationship: degree of control, who supplies tools and equipment, how payment is structured, and how integrated the person is into the business.
Reclassification triggers retrospective employer and employee Provident Fund contribution demands for the whole engagement period, potential ESI liability, and gratuity exposure if the relationship in substance ran long enough. We don't quote a specific interest or damages percentage here: several HR-consultancy sources report figures, but none traces back to the underlying EPF Act sections directly. The direction of the exposure is real. Treat any specific number you've seen elsewhere as unverified until you're looking at your situation with a CA.
Copyright Act s.17(c) requires a genuine contract of service, meaning employment. A contractor's work is governed by a contract for service, so it stays personally owned by the contractor unless the agreement assigns it explicitly, in present-tense, signed language.
Process
Step 1 of 4
Tell us the engagement
Scope, deliverables, payment structure, duration, and exclusivity terms.
Common mistakes founders make
Clarifications
No. Courts look at the substance of the relationship rather than the contract's title. If the working relationship looks like employment, a court can treat it as employment regardless of what the agreement says.
We'll flag them in your brief before drafting. Sometimes the right fix is adjusting how the engagement runs. Sometimes the honest answer is that the role should be structured as employment instead, and our employment agreement drafting service is the better fit.
No. Copyright Act s.17(c) only covers employment relationships. A contractor's work needs an explicit, present-tense, signed assignment clause to transfer.
Retrospective Provident Fund contribution demands for the employer and employee share, potential ESI liability, and gratuity exposure if the relationship ran long enough. We don't quote a specific interest or damages figure, since the sources reporting one don't trace back to the underlying EPF Act text.
Related
Learn the details
Guides that walk through every step.
Prefer to skip the paperwork?
BuildWright can take this off your plate — done properly, the first time.
Tell us about your partners and business and we'll take it from there.
Get a Quote
Skip the hassle — have us do it for you. We do it best.