Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)Section 2 in The Explosive Substances Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd vs E.S.I. Corpn.(N.P.Singh,J.) on 14 July, 1994
16. In Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. v. E.S.I. Corporation, , the Supreme Court held that the true test to find out the applicability of the Act was to see whether the principal employer had control over the employees.
The Factories Act, 1948
C.E.S.C. Ltd. Etc vs Subhash Chandra Bose And Ors on 15 November, 1991
6. Learned counsel relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in C.E.S.C. Ltd. v. Subhas Chandra Bose, 1992-I-LLJ-475. On the facts of that particular case, it was held that if the work by the employee was conducted under the direct supervision of the principal employer, he would be an employee under the Act. In that case, it was held that direct supervision and control by the principal employer was held to be one of the determinative factors to decide about the liability to pay contribution under the E.S.I. Act.
Section 75 in The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Employees' State Insurance Corpn. vs M/S. Harrison Malayalam Pvt. Ltd. on 30 August, 1993
Learned counsel also states that in Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Harrison Malayalam Pvt. Ltd. a question whether the casual contractors such as plumbers, electricity repairers could be treated as covered by the Act, the Supreme Court had left the question open to be considered later.
1