<?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>PERSON WORKING IN THE CAPACITY OF CONSULTANT CANNOT BE DEEMED WORKMAN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=10927</link>
    <description>The High Court found the petitioner produced documentary evidence indicating a consultancy relationship, including records of consultation fee payments acknowledged by the respondent, and held the respondent failed to establish prima facie that he was appointed as a workman; the High Court set aside the Labour Court&#039;s award and rejected adverse inference drawn from non-production of attendance and payment registers.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 31 Dec 2022 08:48:34 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Dec 2022 08:48:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=700365" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>PERSON WORKING IN THE CAPACITY OF CONSULTANT CANNOT BE DEEMED WORKMAN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=10927</link>
      <description>The High Court found the petitioner produced documentary evidence indicating a consultancy relationship, including records of consultation fee payments acknowledged by the respondent, and held the respondent failed to establish prima facie that he was appointed as a workman; the High Court set aside the Labour Court&#039;s award and rejected adverse inference drawn from non-production of attendance and payment registers.</description>
      <category>Articles</category>
      <law>Other Topics</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 31 Dec 2022 08:48:34 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=10927</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>