https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460919 The ESI Act does not treat a Managing Director with substantive powers of management as an employee under section 2(9). The Court reasoned that the Act separately contemplates a principal employer and that a person appointed by the Board, entrusted with Board-level powers, falls within that category rather than the class of wage-earning employees. The theory of dual capacity was rejected because the statutory scheme is inconsistent with one person being both principal employer and employee for ESI purposes. The Managing Director was therefore not covered as an employee under the Act. en-us Mon, 20 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Mar 2025 12:28:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460919 The ESI Act does not treat a Managing Director with substantive powers of management as an employee under section 2(9). The Court reasoned that the Act separately contemplates a principal employer and that a person appointed by the Board, entrusted with Board-level powers, falls within that category rather than the class of wage-earning employees. The theory of dual capacity was rejected because the statutory scheme is inconsistent with one person being both principal employer and employee for ESI purposes. The Managing Director was therefore not covered as an employee under the Act. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 20 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460919