<?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>2000 (9) TMI 930 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104886</link>
    <description>An Agricultural Produce Market Committee constituted under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 is an industry under section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 because its core functions are regulatory and welfare-oriented, not primary and inalienable sovereign functions. Its statutory character and the presence of government servants among its staff do not by themselves exclude the remaining employees from industrial law. Section 59(3) of the State Act was confined to its limited non obstante effect on service-transfer compensation and did not expressly or by necessary implication exclude the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondent-employees were therefore workmen entitled to invoke that Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2018 17:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141925" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (9) TMI 930 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104886</link>
      <description>An Agricultural Produce Market Committee constituted under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 is an industry under section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 because its core functions are regulatory and welfare-oriented, not primary and inalienable sovereign functions. Its statutory character and the presence of government servants among its staff do not by themselves exclude the remaining employees from industrial law. Section 59(3) of the State Act was confined to its limited non obstante effect on service-transfer compensation and did not expressly or by necessary implication exclude the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondent-employees were therefore workmen entitled to invoke that Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104886</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>