https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304876 Canteen workers engaged through a separate subsidiary to run a canteen in Air India's premises were not treated as Air India employees, because the majority found no employer-employee relationship on the facts: Air India did not appoint, pay, supervise in the relevant sense, or exercise disciplinary control over them, and its shareholding, directions, subsidy, and infrastructure support did not collapse the corporate identity of the two entities. The requirement to maintain a canteen under factory law did not by itself make the workers regular employees of Air India, and the contract was not regarded as a sham or camouflage. The Tribunal's award was therefore set aside, although the dissent treated the canteen as statutory and the contract as camouflage warranting regularisation. en-us Wed, 13 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Nov 2022 13:20:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304876 Canteen workers engaged through a separate subsidiary to run a canteen in Air India's premises were not treated as Air India employees, because the majority found no employer-employee relationship on the facts: Air India did not appoint, pay, supervise in the relevant sense, or exercise disciplinary control over them, and its shareholding, directions, subsidy, and infrastructure support did not collapse the corporate identity of the two entities. The requirement to maintain a canteen under factory law did not by itself make the workers regular employees of Air India, and the contract was not regarded as a sham or camouflage. The Tribunal's award was therefore set aside, although the dissent treated the canteen as statutory and the contract as camouflage warranting regularisation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 13 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304876