<?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>1984 (10) TMI 242 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188362</link>
    <description>Employees engaged in the administrative and editorial sections of a newspaper printing press fall within the statutory definition of &quot;employee&quot; under the Employees&#039; State Insurance Act because they are employed for wages in work connected with the factory&#039;s operation, administration, and publication process. The definition is not limited to factory-floor workers, and editorial tasks essential to preparing material for print, as well as administrative functions managing the press, are covered. A later notification under section 1(5) was not required where the existing definition already applied, so contribution liability extended to those staff and the demand was valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2016 14:18:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=449801" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (10) TMI 242 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188362</link>
      <description>Employees engaged in the administrative and editorial sections of a newspaper printing press fall within the statutory definition of &quot;employee&quot; under the Employees&#039; State Insurance Act because they are employed for wages in work connected with the factory&#039;s operation, administration, and publication process. The definition is not limited to factory-floor workers, and editorial tasks essential to preparing material for print, as well as administrative functions managing the press, are covered. A later notification under section 1(5) was not required where the existing definition already applied, so contribution liability extended to those staff and the demand was valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188362</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>