<?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 (4) TMI 108 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168338</link>
    <description>Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 was construed narrowly: it covers only disputes touching a society&#039;s constitution, management or business that the Registrar can resolve under the Act, rules and bye-laws. Disputes seeking alteration of employees&#039; service conditions were held outside that scope because the Registrar could not vary service conditions fixed by bye-laws. The bye-laws were binding between the parties but did not have the force of law so as to exclude Industrial Tribunal jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 16(5) was treated as irrelevant to this jurisdictional question.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Feb 2015 12:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=376603" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (4) TMI 108 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168338</link>
      <description>Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 was construed narrowly: it covers only disputes touching a society&#039;s constitution, management or business that the Registrar can resolve under the Act, rules and bye-laws. Disputes seeking alteration of employees&#039; service conditions were held outside that scope because the Registrar could not vary service conditions fixed by bye-laws. The bye-laws were binding between the parties but did not have the force of law so as to exclude Industrial Tribunal jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 16(5) was treated as irrelevant to this jurisdictional question.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168338</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>