<?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>2004 (2) TMI 688 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176433</link>
    <description>An employer-employee relationship is not proved by a single factor; it must be assessed cumulatively through indicators such as control, supervision, appointment, wage payment, disciplinary power, working hours, and integration into the establishment. Applying that approach, the SC accepted findings that the society did not maintain attendance or wage registers, did not fix working hours, did not appoint or discipline the workers, and did not exercise total control over their work. The work was engaged by growers and merchants on a job-to-job basis, with payment ordinarily made by them. The workers failed to discharge the burden of proving employment with the society, and the claim that the arrangement was a camouflage was rejected on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2016 16:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=410056" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 688 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176433</link>
      <description>An employer-employee relationship is not proved by a single factor; it must be assessed cumulatively through indicators such as control, supervision, appointment, wage payment, disciplinary power, working hours, and integration into the establishment. Applying that approach, the SC accepted findings that the society did not maintain attendance or wage registers, did not fix working hours, did not appoint or discipline the workers, and did not exercise total control over their work. The work was engaged by growers and merchants on a job-to-job basis, with payment ordinarily made by them. The workers failed to discharge the burden of proving employment with the society, and the claim that the arrangement was a camouflage was rejected on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176433</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>