<?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>2012 (11) TMI 1317 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301372</link>
    <description>Employer liability to pay Employees&#039; State Insurance contributions is a mandatory statutory obligation, and the principal employer cannot resist payment by adding conditions not found in the Act. Contribution does not depend on whether employees have already received medical facilities or other benefits, because coverage under the statute itself triggers the duty to contribute. A private settlement with contractor labour representatives cannot suspend or override the Act&#039;s operation. Writ relief against show-cause notices was also held unwarranted in the absence of patent lack of jurisdiction, especially where the statutory remedy under Section 75 was available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Jul 2023 10:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=674549" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 1317 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301372</link>
      <description>Employer liability to pay Employees&#039; State Insurance contributions is a mandatory statutory obligation, and the principal employer cannot resist payment by adding conditions not found in the Act. Contribution does not depend on whether employees have already received medical facilities or other benefits, because coverage under the statute itself triggers the duty to contribute. A private settlement with contractor labour representatives cannot suspend or override the Act&#039;s operation. Writ relief against show-cause notices was also held unwarranted in the absence of patent lack of jurisdiction, especially where the statutory remedy under Section 75 was available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301372</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>