https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283956 Workers engaged through an intermediary were treated as employees of the principal employer because the evidence showed supervision by the principal employer's staff, attendance control by its employees, and an artificial contractor arrangement used to avoid labour obligations; the finding that the intermediary was a sham was upheld. The concurrent factual finding that the workmen had completed more than 240 days of service was also left undisturbed because no perversity, lack of evidence, or illegality was shown. The appeals therefore failed, and the award and connected orders were maintained. en-us Mon, 21 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Jul 2024 14:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283956 Workers engaged through an intermediary were treated as employees of the principal employer because the evidence showed supervision by the principal employer's staff, attendance control by its employees, and an artificial contractor arrangement used to avoid labour obligations; the finding that the intermediary was a sham was upheld. The concurrent factual finding that the workmen had completed more than 240 days of service was also left undisturbed because no perversity, lack of evidence, or illegality was shown. The appeals therefore failed, and the award and connected orders were maintained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 21 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283956