<?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>1987 (2) TMI 516 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183204</link>
    <description>A premises used to provide music services for consideration at marriages and other social functions was treated as a shop for the purposes of the Employees&#039; State Insurance Act, because services sold commercially fall within the ordinary meaning of shop and the Act is beneficial legislation. The intermittent or seasonal character of such work did not exclude the establishment from coverage, since employees connected with the business, including part-time or daily-wage workers, remained within the Act. The challenge to section 1(5) and the notification on grounds of excessive delegation and constitutional violation under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 was rejected, and compliance with the Act was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Jun 2016 15:25:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=430235" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (2) TMI 516 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183204</link>
      <description>A premises used to provide music services for consideration at marriages and other social functions was treated as a shop for the purposes of the Employees&#039; State Insurance Act, because services sold commercially fall within the ordinary meaning of shop and the Act is beneficial legislation. The intermittent or seasonal character of such work did not exclude the establishment from coverage, since employees connected with the business, including part-time or daily-wage workers, remained within the Act. The challenge to section 1(5) and the notification on grounds of excessive delegation and constitutional violation under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 was rejected, and compliance with the Act was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183204</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>