Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.20 seconds)

Chanan Singh Proprietor Chanan Singh ... vs Regional Director, Employees' State ... on 14 December, 1962

On the basis of that record he deposed that the total number of his employees never exceeded 14. No question was put to him with regard to the status of the contractors. The very fact that they have been shown in a separate category leads to an inference that these contractors were not under the control of the manager of the appellant Durga Metal Works and were independent contractors regarded as independent entities. Chanan Singh v. Regional Director Employee's Corporation, Amritsar also cannot retrieve the position either. In that ruling, it was held that even if an employer was working in the factory, he too is to be taken as a person working in the premises for purposes of coverage under the Act. Ours is not a case of a proprietor of the factory working as an employer in the factory. The learned court refused to look into the documents produced by the appellant before it on the ground that production of these documents at that stage could be of no value because the same were not produced by the petitioner before the inspector and were not produced even before the Corporation in pursuance of notice Ex. R. 3. I do not think that if the documents were not produced before the Corporation, the appellant was precluded from producing and proving these documents, before the court. The court has not said that they were not or could not be considered to be, genuine documents.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Usha Prints (India) (Private) Ltd. vs Employees' State Insurance ... on 4 April, 1963

The learned counsel for the Corporation cited The Ustia Prints v. The Employees State Insurance Corporation and another . The High Court of Bombay observed as follows : "INa large number of factories for grant many reasons contractors are employed to do certain portion of the work but they are directly under the supervision of the managers of the factory. Unless clear proof were afforded which showed that this contractor had nothing to do with the Usha Prints, that he was never under the control of the managers of the Usha Prints and he was so completely an independent contractor that he must be regarded separate entity) inference must necessarily be that the ironing department is a part and parcel of the Usha Prints."
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1