<?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>2004 (8) TMI 685 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170967</link>
    <description>A plea of waiver or substantial compliance with retrenchment compensation requirements cannot be raised for the first time in appeal; waiver must be consciously relinquished, pleaded and proved, and was unavailable where not urged before the Tribunal or Single Judge. Retrenchment was also invalid because compliance with the mandatory safeguards under Section 25-F, including notice, compensation and notice to the Government, is essential, and breach renders retrenchment void ab initio. The Tribunal&#039;s finding of non-compliance with seniority requirements under Rule 77A also remained undisturbed. The award restoring the workman was therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2025 15:26:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=389435" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 685 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170967</link>
      <description>A plea of waiver or substantial compliance with retrenchment compensation requirements cannot be raised for the first time in appeal; waiver must be consciously relinquished, pleaded and proved, and was unavailable where not urged before the Tribunal or Single Judge. Retrenchment was also invalid because compliance with the mandatory safeguards under Section 25-F, including notice, compensation and notice to the Government, is essential, and breach renders retrenchment void ab initio. The Tribunal&#039;s finding of non-compliance with seniority requirements under Rule 77A also remained undisturbed. The award restoring the workman was therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170967</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>