Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)Section 2 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Karachi Bakery vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 29 March, 1990
Reliance is also placed on
Royal Talkies, Hyderabad and Ors. Vs. Employees State Insurance
Corporation (1978) 4 SCC 204; Ramala Sahkari Chii Mills Ltd. Vs.
Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and Anr. (2000) 9 SCC 540
and Karachi Bakery, Hyderabad Vs. Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner 1991 (62) FLR 627 (DB) A.P. There is no evidence on record
to show that these employees were working only for the Petitioner and for no
other employer.
Messrs. P.M. Patel & Sons And Others, Etc vs Union Of India And Others, Etc on 25 September, 1985
Thus, the employees were getting salary directly/ indirectly for the work
from the Petitioner. A perusal of the appointment letters of the 36
employees issued by Shri I.S. Hora, a handling agent would show that they
were employed only for doing the work of the Petitioner and not for any
other company or a private customer. During the proceedings before the
W.P.(C) 2679/1997 Page 3 of 11
Respondent the handling agents were summoned as witnesses and they
deposed that these 36 workers were employed for the work of the Petitioner
and they used to get the money from the Petitioner for paying them. Further,
witnesses have also stated that these 36 employees were given to them by the
Petitioner and they did not engage them on their own. Further, the 36
workers also filed their affidavits stating that though they were employed by
different handling agents since 1985 but they were doing the work of the
Petitioner only and when the contractor/ handling agent failed to make the
payments, the Petitioner used to arrange the same. The Petitioner did not
lead any evidence in support of its objection and despite repeated
opportunities did not appear before the Respondent on 62 dates from 18th
October, 1989 to 9th February, 1995. The workers union was also made a
party and their affidavits were taken on record. Further, the handling agents/
contractors appeared in the witness box and were cross-examined by the
Petitioner and in their cross-examination they stated against the Petitioner.
Reliance is placed on M/s. P.M. Patel & Sons and Ors. Vs. Union of India
and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 447 to contend that the term „employee‟ includes not
only persons employed directly by them but also employed through a
contractor.
Silver Jubilee Tailoring House And ... vs Chief Inspector Of Shops And ... on 25 September, 1973
"The law took a major shift in Silver Jubilee Tailoring House v.
Chief Inspector of Shops and Establishments (1974) 1 SCR
747: (AIR 1974 SC 37) as to the criteria which determined the
relationship of master and servant. Mathew, J., who spoke for
the Court, reviewed the earlier decisions of this Court as well as
some of the decisions rendered in England, and pointed out that
W.P.(C) 2679/1997 Page 7 of 11
the test of control as traditionally formulated was no longer
treated as an exclusive test. He observed : -
Royal Talkies, Hyderabad & Ors vs Employees State Insurance Corp on 9 August, 1978
9. Applying the test laid down by the Supreme Court, it is evident from
the evidence on record that the 36 workers were employed in connection
with the work of the Petitioner though in the disguise through a contractor. I
also do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the
Petitioner that the handling agents were not contractors. The Petitioner
entered into an agreement with them and pursuant thereto they performed the
work as assigned to them.
The Apprentices Act, 1961
Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. vs Employees' Provident Fund Appellate ... on 19 July, 2000
Reliance is also placed on
Royal Talkies, Hyderabad and Ors. Vs. Employees State Insurance
Corporation (1978) 4 SCC 204; Ramala Sahkari Chii Mills Ltd. Vs.
Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and Anr. (2000) 9 SCC 540
and Karachi Bakery, Hyderabad Vs. Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner 1991 (62) FLR 627 (DB) A.P. There is no evidence on record
to show that these employees were working only for the Petitioner and for no
other employer.
1