https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157460 The Court analysed the meaning of "appropriate Government" under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and held that Central Government status depends on whether the industry is carried on by or under its authority, not merely on Article 12 characterisation of the undertaking. It also found the 9 December 1976 prohibition notification invalid because Section 10 requires consideration of the statutory factors for each establishment. The judgment further clarified that abolition of contract labour under Section 10(1) does not cause automatic absorption by the principal employer and does not, by itself, create a direct master-servant relationship; such relief depends on the statute or proof that the contract is sham or camouflage. en-us Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Jun 2025 13:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157460 The Court analysed the meaning of "appropriate Government" under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and held that Central Government status depends on whether the industry is carried on by or under its authority, not merely on Article 12 characterisation of the undertaking. It also found the 9 December 1976 prohibition notification invalid because Section 10 requires consideration of the statutory factors for each establishment. The judgment further clarified that abolition of contract labour under Section 10(1) does not cause automatic absorption by the principal employer and does not, by itself, create a direct master-servant relationship; such relief depends on the statute or proof that the contract is sham or camouflage. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157460