<?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>2009 (3) TMI 860 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126927</link>
    <description>Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not bar adjudication of an industrial dispute pending before the Labour Court. The Gujarat HC noted that the statutory protection applies, if at all, when enforcement or execution of an award or quantified liability is sought, not at the stage of deciding the dispute on merits. Because the rehabilitation scheme was not on record and the workmen&#039;s claims had remained pending for years, the suspension of the proceedings was held unjustified. The Labour Court was directed to proceed with adjudication, leaving any section 22 objection to be considered later at implementation or execution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163813" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 860 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126927</link>
      <description>Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not bar adjudication of an industrial dispute pending before the Labour Court. The Gujarat HC noted that the statutory protection applies, if at all, when enforcement or execution of an award or quantified liability is sought, not at the stage of deciding the dispute on merits. Because the rehabilitation scheme was not on record and the workmen&#039;s claims had remained pending for years, the suspension of the proceedings was held unjustified. The Labour Court was directed to proceed with adjudication, leaving any section 22 objection to be considered later at implementation or execution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126927</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>