<?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>1991 (11) TMI 274 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307328</link>
    <description>Under Section 2(9) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, supervision means meaningful oversight while work is in progress, under the eye and gaze of the principal employer or its agent; mere post-completion checking, rejection, or acceptance is not enough. The majority also held that electrical contractors remained independent immediate employers, because the contracts and licensing requirements did not create express or implied agency in favour of the principal employer, so their employees were not covered on that basis. A concurring opinion agreed with dismissal, while the dissent favoured a purposive reading and treated the contractors as agents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Nov 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Apr 2023 12:39:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=709934" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (11) TMI 274 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307328</link>
      <description>Under Section 2(9) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, supervision means meaningful oversight while work is in progress, under the eye and gaze of the principal employer or its agent; mere post-completion checking, rejection, or acceptance is not enough. The majority also held that electrical contractors remained independent immediate employers, because the contracts and licensing requirements did not create express or implied agency in favour of the principal employer, so their employees were not covered on that basis. A concurring opinion agreed with dismissal, while the dissent favoured a purposive reading and treated the contractors as agents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Nov 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307328</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>