<?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>1978 (3) TMI 182 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151029</link>
    <description>In industrial adjudication, the substance of a management application prevails over its form, so an application misdescribed under one provision may be treated under the correct statutory provision where the real intention is clear. The SC noted that the employer had not finally dismissed the workman but had kept the proposed punishment in abeyance pending statutory permission. It also emphasised that technical rejection should not prevent consideration of whether a prima facie case existed, whether the action was bona fide, and whether victimisation or unfair labour practice was involved. The adverse orders were set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Mar 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 17:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168068" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (3) TMI 182 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151029</link>
      <description>In industrial adjudication, the substance of a management application prevails over its form, so an application misdescribed under one provision may be treated under the correct statutory provision where the real intention is clear. The SC noted that the employer had not finally dismissed the workman but had kept the proposed punishment in abeyance pending statutory permission. It also emphasised that technical rejection should not prevent consideration of whether a prima facie case existed, whether the action was bona fide, and whether victimisation or unfair labour practice was involved. The adverse orders were set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Mar 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151029</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>