1)Whether a person who is employed by a contractor who

undertakes contracts for the execution of any of the whole of the work or any part of the work which is ordinarily work

the undertaking is an employee within the meaning of

section 3(5) of the MRTU and PULP Act?



2) Whether a complaint filed under the MRTU and PULP

Act by an employee as defined under section 3(l3) of the

Bombay Industrial Relations Act, is maintainable although no direct relationship of employer employee exists between

him and the principal employer?



3) Whether a complaint filed under the MRTU and PULP

Act by employees under section 3(l3) of the BIR Act can be

dismissed if the employer claims that they are not his direct

employees but are employed through a contractor

Attached Files

CASE LAW -EMPLOYEE March 2011.pdf (120.5 KB, 17 views)