<?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>1958 (10) TMI 44 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181367</link>
    <description>Preparation of meals, refreshments, coffee and other eatables in hotel and restaurant establishments was treated as a manufacturing process within the wide language of Section 2(k) of the Factories Act, 1948, because it involved making or treating articles for use or sale. Where the statutory minimum number of workers was also satisfied, the premises fell within the definition of a factory under Section 2(m), so the Act applied to them. The Act was also characterised in pith and substance as labour legislation regulating working conditions in factories; that subject lay within legislative competence, and any overlap with inns and innkeepers was only incidental. The challenge to applicability and validity therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2016 18:22:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=423858" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (10) TMI 44 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181367</link>
      <description>Preparation of meals, refreshments, coffee and other eatables in hotel and restaurant establishments was treated as a manufacturing process within the wide language of Section 2(k) of the Factories Act, 1948, because it involved making or treating articles for use or sale. Where the statutory minimum number of workers was also satisfied, the premises fell within the definition of a factory under Section 2(m), so the Act applied to them. The Act was also characterised in pith and substance as labour legislation regulating working conditions in factories; that subject lay within legislative competence, and any overlap with inns and innkeepers was only incidental. The challenge to applicability and validity therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181367</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>