<?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>1956 (9) TMI 75 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288637</link>
    <description>Under the Factories Act, 1948, the definition of &quot;manufacturing process&quot; is broad enough to cover work incidental to or connected with manufacture, and &quot;worker&quot; includes persons engaged in such work directly or through an agency. Packing soap cases was treated as incidental to the manufacturing process, so the carpenter doing that work could be counted toward the statutory strength. By contrast, a boy merely holding a paint tin for sign-board painting was outside the manufacturing process and could not be counted. On that basis, the required minimum of twenty workers was not made out and the premises did not qualify as a factory.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2020 09:39:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=615606" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (9) TMI 75 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288637</link>
      <description>Under the Factories Act, 1948, the definition of &quot;manufacturing process&quot; is broad enough to cover work incidental to or connected with manufacture, and &quot;worker&quot; includes persons engaged in such work directly or through an agency. Packing soap cases was treated as incidental to the manufacturing process, so the carpenter doing that work could be counted toward the statutory strength. By contrast, a boy merely holding a paint tin for sign-board painting was outside the manufacturing process and could not be counted. On that basis, the required minimum of twenty workers was not made out and the premises did not qualify as a factory.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288637</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>