<?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>1954 (10) TMI 39 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157690</link>
    <description>A pre-Constitution order continuing in force under constitutional continuity provisions was treated as effective, so the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer could act as the appropriate Government under the Minimum Wages Act. Section 27 was upheld as valid conditional legislation because it reflected the Act&#039;s policy of fixing minimum wages while permitting notification of additional employments in light of local conditions. The extension of the Advisory Committee&#039;s term did not vitiate the wage notification, as the rules authorised such extension and the committee was only recommendatory. The legal challenges to the notification therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2014 18:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174713" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1954 (10) TMI 39 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157690</link>
      <description>A pre-Constitution order continuing in force under constitutional continuity provisions was treated as effective, so the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer could act as the appropriate Government under the Minimum Wages Act. Section 27 was upheld as valid conditional legislation because it reflected the Act&#039;s policy of fixing minimum wages while permitting notification of additional employments in light of local conditions. The extension of the Advisory Committee&#039;s term did not vitiate the wage notification, as the rules authorised such extension and the committee was only recommendatory. The legal challenges to the notification therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157690</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>