Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
Transfer-pricing benchmarking and capital-receipt principles sustained taxpayer relief, while unsupported property-advance write-offs remained disallo...
The case revolves around determining whether an employee qualifies as a "workman" u/s 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which would entitle them to certain protections and benefits. The key points are: The Industrial Disputes Act aims to settle industrial disputes and ensure social justice for employers and employees. Section 2(s) defines a "workman" based on the nature of work performed, excluding supervisory or managerial roles above a certain wage threshold. The employee claimed not to be in an executive cadre, while the management asserted the employee supervised junior engineers. The determinative factor is the principal duties performed, not just the designation. Lacking concrete evidence of the employee's actual duties, the court relied on the employment orders designating the employee as an engineer on the administrative side, thus excluding them from the "workman" definition u/s 2(s). Consequently, the High Court's finding that the employee was a "workman" was set aside. Since the employee did not qualify as a "workman," the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, including reinstatement and compensation for back wages, did not apply. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the Labour Court's award of reinstatement and compensation, as there was no violation of procedure by the management in terminating the employee's services.
The case revolves around determining whether an employee qualifies as a "workman" u/s 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which would entitle them to certain protections and benefits. The key points are: The Industrial Disputes Act aims to settle industrial disputes and ensure social justice for employers and employees. Section 2(s) defines a "workman" based on the nature of work performed, excluding supervisory or managerial roles above a certain wage threshold. The employee claimed not to be in an executive cadre, while the management asserted the employee supervised junior engineers. The determinative factor is the principal duties performed, not just the designation. Lacking concrete evidence of the employee's actual duties, the court relied on the employment orders designating the employee as an engineer on the administrative side, thus excluding them from the "workman" definition u/s 2(s). Consequently, the High Court's finding that the employee was a "workman" was set aside. Since the employee did not qualify as a "workman," the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, including reinstatement and compensation for back wages, did not apply. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the Labour Court's award of reinstatement and compensation, as there was no violation of procedure by the management in terminating the employee's services.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
