https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457177 In writ jurisdiction, an Industrial Tribunal's evidence-based findings could be disturbed only for perversity or patent illegality, so the High Court was not justified in re-appreciating the evidence or substituting its own view. On the merits, the Tribunal found a master-servant relationship: no genuine contractor was shown, the principal employer supervised and allotted work, exercised disciplinary control, and paid wages directly. Those findings justified lifting the veil and treating the workmen as employees of the principal employer. The reference, though inelegantly framed, had to be read with the pleadings and evidence, and was not confined to a barred claim for regularization of contract labour. The Tribunal's award was restored and the challenge failed. en-us Fri, 16 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Sep 2024 11:16:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457177 In writ jurisdiction, an Industrial Tribunal's evidence-based findings could be disturbed only for perversity or patent illegality, so the High Court was not justified in re-appreciating the evidence or substituting its own view. On the merits, the Tribunal found a master-servant relationship: no genuine contractor was shown, the principal employer supervised and allotted work, exercised disciplinary control, and paid wages directly. Those findings justified lifting the veil and treating the workmen as employees of the principal employer. The reference, though inelegantly framed, had to be read with the pleadings and evidence, and was not confined to a barred claim for regularization of contract labour. The Tribunal's award was restored and the challenge failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 16 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457177