<?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>2003 (8) TMI 595 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462598</link>
    <description>Workers engaged through a contractor in a canteen maintained under the statutory obligation in Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948 may be treated as employees of the principal employer, because the canteen forms an integral statutory facility rather than a private arrangement. The interposition of a contractor does not by itself defeat that status, and such workers stand on a different footing from ordinary contract labour. The distinction from abolition of contract labour under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour Act was recognised. The workers&#039; claim succeeded, the challenge failed, and the High Court&#039;s protective directions were left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2025 11:36:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=833475" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (8) TMI 595 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462598</link>
      <description>Workers engaged through a contractor in a canteen maintained under the statutory obligation in Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948 may be treated as employees of the principal employer, because the canteen forms an integral statutory facility rather than a private arrangement. The interposition of a contractor does not by itself defeat that status, and such workers stand on a different footing from ordinary contract labour. The distinction from abolition of contract labour under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour Act was recognised. The workers&#039; claim succeeded, the challenge failed, and the High Court&#039;s protective directions were left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462598</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>