<?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>2005 (1) TMI 418 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111093</link>
    <description>A dispute challenging disciplinary action by a Multi-State Co-operative Society against its paid employee is excluded from section 74 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 and cannot be referred to the Central Registrar. The provision is confined to disputes touching the society&#039;s constitution, management or business, and the deemed-dispute clause does not extend to service disputes of this kind. A Labour Officer, as a paid employee, therefore cannot invoke that forum to question removal from service. The analogous Maharashtra provision was treated as not pari materia, so the earlier local precedent did not assist the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 12:49:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148109" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 418 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111093</link>
      <description>A dispute challenging disciplinary action by a Multi-State Co-operative Society against its paid employee is excluded from section 74 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 and cannot be referred to the Central Registrar. The provision is confined to disputes touching the society&#039;s constitution, management or business, and the deemed-dispute clause does not extend to service disputes of this kind. A Labour Officer, as a paid employee, therefore cannot invoke that forum to question removal from service. The analogous Maharashtra provision was treated as not pari materia, so the earlier local precedent did not assist the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111093</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>