<?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>1993 (7) TMI 343 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183062</link>
    <description>Section 2-A of the Employees&#039; Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 treats different branches or departments of an establishment as one unit where the real relationship shows unity of ownership, management, control, employment and purpose. Applying those factors, the Coimbatore factory was found to be a branch of the Chalakudy establishment because both units made the same product, were owned by the same company, shared management and financial control, and showed functional and financial dependency. Separate registration, licences and accounts were not decisive on those facts. The factory was therefore covered under the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 May 2016 10:58:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=429820" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (7) TMI 343 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183062</link>
      <description>Section 2-A of the Employees&#039; Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 treats different branches or departments of an establishment as one unit where the real relationship shows unity of ownership, management, control, employment and purpose. Applying those factors, the Coimbatore factory was found to be a branch of the Chalakudy establishment because both units made the same product, were owned by the same company, shared management and financial control, and showed functional and financial dependency. Separate registration, licences and accounts were not decisive on those facts. The factory was therefore covered under the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183062</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>