<?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>2008 (1) TMI 863 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168237</link>
    <description>A suit by workmen seeking declaration that termination was illegal, along with reinstatement and back wages, falls outside civil court cognizance where the dispute arises from service conditions governed by Certified Standing Orders and is essentially an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The special statutory machinery under that Act is the proper forum for claims based on breach of seniority principles, discriminatory retrenchment, or the last come first go rule. Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, waiver, or failure to raise an objection earlier. The civil court decrees were therefore without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2015 21:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=375396" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 863 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168237</link>
      <description>A suit by workmen seeking declaration that termination was illegal, along with reinstatement and back wages, falls outside civil court cognizance where the dispute arises from service conditions governed by Certified Standing Orders and is essentially an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The special statutory machinery under that Act is the proper forum for claims based on breach of seniority principles, discriminatory retrenchment, or the last come first go rule. Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, waiver, or failure to raise an objection earlier. The civil court decrees were therefore without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168237</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>