<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1974 (3) TMI 104 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155214</link>
    <description>A purposive reading of the contract labour welfare statute treats construction undertaken for an establishment&#039;s benefit as &quot;work of the establishment,&quot; so the Act extends to contractors engaged for that work. The Court further accepted that welfare requirements, licensing conditions, fees, security deposit, forfeiture, inspection powers, and the power to remove difficulties are rationally connected to the statute&#039;s object of preventing exploitation and securing humane conditions, and therefore do not offend Article 19(1)(g) or amount to excessive delegation. The challenged provisions were upheld as constitutionally valid, and the challenge to the Act and Rules failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2014 12:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172245" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (3) TMI 104 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155214</link>
      <description>A purposive reading of the contract labour welfare statute treats construction undertaken for an establishment&#039;s benefit as &quot;work of the establishment,&quot; so the Act extends to contractors engaged for that work. The Court further accepted that welfare requirements, licensing conditions, fees, security deposit, forfeiture, inspection powers, and the power to remove difficulties are rationally connected to the statute&#039;s object of preventing exploitation and securing humane conditions, and therefore do not offend Article 19(1)(g) or amount to excessive delegation. The challenged provisions were upheld as constitutionally valid, and the challenge to the Act and Rules failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155214</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>