<?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>1969 (12) TMI 109 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167288</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court held that employees of a Corporation like Hindustan Steel Ltd. are not entitled to Art. 311 protection as they do not hold civil posts under the Union or a State. Despite Government financing and management, the Court emphasized the legal distinction between a Corporation and a Government entity. The appellant&#039;s termination without Art. 311 safeguards was deemed lawful, and the appeal was dismissed without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=371082" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (12) TMI 109 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167288</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court held that employees of a Corporation like Hindustan Steel Ltd. are not entitled to Art. 311 protection as they do not hold civil posts under the Union or a State. Despite Government financing and management, the Court emphasized the legal distinction between a Corporation and a Government entity. The appellant&#039;s termination without Art. 311 safeguards was deemed lawful, and the appeal was dismissed without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167288</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>