Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
The court held that the appropriate government, while considering whether to make a reference u/s 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is not entitled to adjudicate the dispute on merits. Its function is administrative, not judicial or quasi-judicial. It cannot delve into the merits and determine the dispute itself. The authority erred by refusing reference on the technical ground that the petitioner worked only 85 days without substantiating further employment claim. The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the appropriate government for making a reference of the dispute.
The court held that the appropriate government, while considering whether to make a reference u/s 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is not entitled to adjudicate the dispute on merits. Its function is administrative, not judicial or quasi-judicial. It cannot delve into the merits and determine the dispute itself. The authority erred by refusing reference on the technical ground that the petitioner worked only 85 days without substantiating further employment claim. The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the appropriate government for making a reference of the dispute.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.