<?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>1997 (11) TMI 514 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166963</link>
    <description>A Managing Director of a private company may be treated as an employee under the Employees&#039; State Insurance Act where he is appointed by board resolution, receives fixed remuneration, and functions under the Board&#039;s control. The Court held that such remuneration is wages within the statutory definition, and that the Act permits dual capacity: a person may be both director and employee. The partnership-law distinction was inapplicable because a company is a separate juristic entity from its directors. The Managing Director therefore had to be counted for determining coverage under the twenty-person threshold, and the establishment&#039;s liability under the Act was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2014 12:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=368898" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (11) TMI 514 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166963</link>
      <description>A Managing Director of a private company may be treated as an employee under the Employees&#039; State Insurance Act where he is appointed by board resolution, receives fixed remuneration, and functions under the Board&#039;s control. The Court held that such remuneration is wages within the statutory definition, and that the Act permits dual capacity: a person may be both director and employee. The partnership-law distinction was inapplicable because a company is a separate juristic entity from its directors. The Managing Director therefore had to be counted for determining coverage under the twenty-person threshold, and the establishment&#039;s liability under the Act was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166963</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>