https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276647 Workmen engaged through a contractor to perform work ordinarily forming part of an industry were treated as workmen of the industry owner, because the inclusive definition of employer was construed to prevent evasion of statutory labour protections through contractual labour. The challenge that this extended definition violated Article 19(1)(g) failed, as the restriction was held to be in the interest of the general public. The Standing Orders were also read broadly to cover persons employed to do the work of the factory, including contract labour, so minimum wages and reinstatement benefits applied. The statutory scheme was therefore held to extend these protections to such workmen. en-us Thu, 04 Apr 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Nov 2018 11:33:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276647 Workmen engaged through a contractor to perform work ordinarily forming part of an industry were treated as workmen of the industry owner, because the inclusive definition of employer was construed to prevent evasion of statutory labour protections through contractual labour. The challenge that this extended definition violated Article 19(1)(g) failed, as the restriction was held to be in the interest of the general public. The Standing Orders were also read broadly to cover persons employed to do the work of the factory, including contract labour, so minimum wages and reinstatement benefits applied. The statutory scheme was therefore held to extend these protections to such workmen. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 04 Apr 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276647