<?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>2016 (3) TMI 1455 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307869</link>
    <description>Franchisee and service-agent arrangements were treated as part of the principal establishment under the Employees&#039; Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 because the materials showed overall financial and operational control, common records, mandatory remittance of collections, stationery supply, and restricted autonomy. The enquiry under Section 7A found unity of management, functional integrity and unity of purpose, and the workers were held to fall within the definition of employee under Section 2(f), bringing the establishment within Section 2A coverage. The High Court upheld the finding that the employees of those agencies were covered employees under the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 May 2023 21:13:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=713502" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 1455 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307869</link>
      <description>Franchisee and service-agent arrangements were treated as part of the principal establishment under the Employees&#039; Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 because the materials showed overall financial and operational control, common records, mandatory remittance of collections, stationery supply, and restricted autonomy. The enquiry under Section 7A found unity of management, functional integrity and unity of purpose, and the workers were held to fall within the definition of employee under Section 2(f), bringing the establishment within Section 2A coverage. The High Court upheld the finding that the employees of those agencies were covered employees under the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307869</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>