Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.19 seconds)Section 2 in The Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Messrs. P.M. Patel & Sons And Others, Etc vs Union Of India And Others, Etc on 25 September, 1985
(1973-II-LLJ-495) (SC) in the case of Silver Jubilee Tailoring House and Ors. v. Chief Inspector of Shops and Establishments and Anr. and A.I.R. 1987 SC 447 in the case of M/s. P. M. Patel & Sons & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. But from the facts and circumstances of both the cases, it would be quite clear that they are not at all applicable to the facts of the case before me. In the first case, the appellant before the Apex Court had a tailoring shop and he was getting the work done through other persons. For that purpose he was providing them all raw materials and he was also providing his sewing machines. No doubt those persons who were carrying out the said job were not having any fixed working hours and they were at liberty to work with others and even not to work except the job given by the appellant. But in view of the fact that the appellant was providing them sewing machines as well as raw materials and was at liberty to reject the work carried on by them and to get the restitching and further not to give them work any more, it was held that the relation of those workers and the appellant was that of employer and employee. In the second case the workers of beedi rolling at home were treated as employees of owner of Beedi factories. The facts in both these cases are not prevailing in the case before me. In the affidavits of other diamond cutters and polishers, they have clearly stated that the machinery used by them in cutting and polishing diamond are of their own ownership. Not only that they have other mentioned that financed by the petitioner No. 1 in purchasing the said machinery. They have also stated that they are free to accept the job of cutting and polishing diamond of the petitioner and also from other persons. At the cost of repetition, it must be stated that out of these 22 persons, 8 persons are at not at all doing any job for the petitioner No. 1-firm. The only circumstance which is common between the case of AIR 1974 S.C. 447 and the present case is that the petitioner No. 1-firm is free to ask the said diamond cutter and polisher to carry out the work as per his directions if they are not carrying out the same when the raw material was entrusted to them. But merely because of this single circumstance it could not be said that they are employees of the petitioner No. 1-firm.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bihar Shops & Establishments Act, 1953
Section 16 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
The Indian Partnership Act, 1932
Sayaji Mills Ltd vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 21 December, 1984
In the case of Sayaji Mills Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (1985-I-LLJ-238) (SC) the following principles are laid down. "Provident Fund Act is a beneficent statute which should be construed so as to advance the object with which it is passed. Any construction which would facilitate evasion of the provisions of the Act should as far as possible be avoided. Section 16 of the Act, being a clause granting exemption to the employer from the liability to make contribution, should receive a strict construction".