Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
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.