https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194512 A parent company is not a necessary or proper party to an employee's suit against a subsidiary merely because it owns all the shares or receives reporting from the subsidiary. Separate legal personality remains intact unless there is a basis to pierce the corporate veil or establish direct privity in the employment relationship. Where the employment contract and alleged termination concern the subsidiary, any claim lies, if at all, against that employer company. On those facts, no cause of action against the parent company was disclosed, so the parent was not liable in the employee dispute. en-us Tue, 20 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Sep 2017 21:37:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194512 A parent company is not a necessary or proper party to an employee's suit against a subsidiary merely because it owns all the shares or receives reporting from the subsidiary. Separate legal personality remains intact unless there is a basis to pierce the corporate veil or establish direct privity in the employment relationship. Where the employment contract and alleged termination concern the subsidiary, any claim lies, if at all, against that employer company. On those facts, no cause of action against the parent company was disclosed, so the parent was not liable in the employee dispute. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 20 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194512