<?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>2013 (11) TMI 655 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239478</link>
    <description>An entry in a welfare statute must be construed in its ordinary and popular sense, and its scope cannot be enlarged by strained interpretation. Applying common parlance, dry brown coconut is not ordinarily understood as fruit, so an industry engaged in desiccating and processing it does not fall within the entry &quot;Fruit and Vegetable Preservation Industry&quot; in Schedule I of the Employees&#039; Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The coverage order treating the petitioner&#039;s unit as covered under that entry was unsustainable, and the writ petition succeeded with the tribunal&#039;s order quashed and consequential protection against coercive action.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2013 22:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335626" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 655 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239478</link>
      <description>An entry in a welfare statute must be construed in its ordinary and popular sense, and its scope cannot be enlarged by strained interpretation. Applying common parlance, dry brown coconut is not ordinarily understood as fruit, so an industry engaged in desiccating and processing it does not fall within the entry &quot;Fruit and Vegetable Preservation Industry&quot; in Schedule I of the Employees&#039; Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The coverage order treating the petitioner&#039;s unit as covered under that entry was unsustainable, and the writ petition succeeded with the tribunal&#039;s order quashed and consequential protection against coercive action.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239478</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>