<?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>1962 (1) TMI 95 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465207</link>
    <description>A composite factory manufacturing both scheduled and non-scheduled articles can still fall within the Employees&#039; Provident Funds Act, 1952, if it is in substance engaged in a Schedule I industry and employs the required number of persons. The Act cannot be avoided merely because the same establishment also makes non-scheduled goods. Earlier authorities were distinguished because they concerned intermediate products, incidental workshop activity, or businesses wholly outside the Schedule. On the stated facts, the factory was held to be within the Act, the Commissioner&#039;s order was not without jurisdiction, and certiorari relief was refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jan 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2025 12:58:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=870807" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (1) TMI 95 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465207</link>
      <description>A composite factory manufacturing both scheduled and non-scheduled articles can still fall within the Employees&#039; Provident Funds Act, 1952, if it is in substance engaged in a Schedule I industry and employs the required number of persons. The Act cannot be avoided merely because the same establishment also makes non-scheduled goods. Earlier authorities were distinguished because they concerned intermediate products, incidental workshop activity, or businesses wholly outside the Schedule. On the stated facts, the factory was held to be within the Act, the Commissioner&#039;s order was not without jurisdiction, and certiorari relief was refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jan 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465207</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>