Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.46 seconds)
Kamarajan Textiles, Through Its ... vs Employees State Insurance ... on 24 August, 1976 cites

Shankar Balaji Waje vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 October, 1961

In Shankar Balaji v. State of Maharashtra , a beedi factory engaged certain workers for rolling beedies. The Supreme Court found that the owner of the factory had no control or supervision over the details of the rolling of beedies, that he was concerned only with getting beedies rolled in a particular style with certain contents and that how the beedies were rolled was not his concern. On the facts of this case I don't think the said two decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant will help him.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 44 - R Dayal - Full Document

S. Palaniappa Mudaliar vs Additional First Class Magistrate And ... on 17 April, 1958

9. In the present case it is clearly seen that the appellant had a voice in the selection of the goods to be manufactured and also in the quality of the goods. The Weaving work is normally done in the premises by workers even though they are being paid on piece rate basis. In this case it has been found that the workers have to weave the towels in accordance with the specification given by the management with regard to the measurement and colour and that they are also expected to do the work without any damage. It is, therefore, clear that the appellant had control and supervision over the manner of work of the workers engaged in the weaving section, though they used to undertake the work of weaving according to their own convenience without any restrictions as to the hours of work. On the facts of this case the decision of Balakrishna Ayyar. J., in Palaniappa Mudaliar v. Additional First Class Magistrate, Kulitalai , and the decision of the Supreme Court in Shankar Balaji v. State of Maharashtra , cannot apply, and the decision of the lower Court has, therefore, to be upheld.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd vs State Of Saurashtra on 23 November, 1956

Applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Dharargadhara Chemical Works Limited v. State of Saurashtra , the learned Judge has held that where the master had a voice in the selection of the goods to be manufactured and also in the quality of the same and the work is to be done in his own premises, the workmen have to be treated as persons employed in the factory even though they may be paid on a piece rate basis.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 311 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

Dhala Tanning Company, Gemini Studios, ... vs Employees State Insurance Corporation ... on 6 March, 1973

10. The learned Counsel for the appellant points out that some of the persons employed in the factory are casual workers and they cannot be included for the purpose of coverage under the Act. The learned Counsel refers to a decision in Dhala Tanning Co. v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation , wherein a Division Bench of this Court has observed therefore, even if on one single day 20 or more persons bad been employed for wages, it would be a factory, provided in any part of the premises a manufacturing process is carried on with the aid of power, etc. That would prima facie show that even a casual labourer has to be counted in order to determine whether a particular premises is a factory as define d under the Act or not. But whether a casual worker is entitled to insurance cover under the Act may be a different question.
Madras High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Gnanambikai Mills Ltd. vs Employees' State Insurance ... on 7 July, 1969

In that view, the learned Judges had left that question open, though they have referred to the decision of Ramamurti, J., in Gnanambikai Mills v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation (1970) 2 L.L.J. 233, holding that the provisions of the Act would not apply to casual workers. Though the appellant has raised a contention before the lower Court that some of the persons employed by him are casual workers and, therefore, they cannot be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether his premises is a factory or not, it has not specifically raised the question that even if the casual workers can be taken into account for the purpose of finding out whether 20 or more persons are working in the factory, such casual workers are not entitled to the coverage under the Act. It is not, therefore, open to the appellant to raise the contention in this appeal. It is, however, open to the appellant to raise specifically the question that a particular person employed as casual worker is not an employee in respect of which contribution is payable by him, by filing a separate application under Section 75.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

B. M. Lakshmanamurthy vs The Employees' State Insurance ... on 21 January, 1974

In B.M. Lakshmanamurthy v. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore , the Supreme Court has expressed the view that the Act being a beneficial piece of social security legislation in the interest of labour in factories, the provisions of that Act will have to be construed with that end in view to promote the scheme and avoid the mischief, that, the work undertaken even by independent contractors as preliminary or incidental to the work in the main factory turning out the finished product having an intimate correlation and being a piece of integrated whole, such work of contractors done through their labour should ordinarily be treated as part of the work of the principal factory and that therefore, the owner of the factory has to pay contribution in respect of the workers employed by the independent contractors.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 10 - P K Goswami - Full Document
1