<?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>1951 (1) TMI 19 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97086</link>
    <description>Workers remained employees of the company despite debenture trustees entering possession and managing the mills, because a change in management did not end the company&#039;s legal existence or the employment relationship. The winding-up prohibition on legal proceedings did not bar the Government&#039;s declaration making the industrial award binding, as that declaration was a statutory act following prior adjudication. The Official Liquidator could not challenge the merits of the award absent fraud, collusion, or miscarriage of justice. Workmen were also entitled to priority for two months&#039; wages under the winding-up provisions, and an illegal lockout did not defeat that statutory protection.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jan 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:17:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134144" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1951 (1) TMI 19 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97086</link>
      <description>Workers remained employees of the company despite debenture trustees entering possession and managing the mills, because a change in management did not end the company&#039;s legal existence or the employment relationship. The winding-up prohibition on legal proceedings did not bar the Government&#039;s declaration making the industrial award binding, as that declaration was a statutory act following prior adjudication. The Official Liquidator could not challenge the merits of the award absent fraud, collusion, or miscarriage of justice. Workmen were also entitled to priority for two months&#039; wages under the winding-up provisions, and an illegal lockout did not defeat that statutory protection.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jan 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97086</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>