<?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>1952 (12) TMI 31 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170990</link>
    <description>Municipal undertakings performing sanitation, conservancy and other public utility functions can fall within the statutory meaning of &quot;industry&quot; when construed broadly and purposively in light of modern industrial conditions. On that footing, a dispute between a municipality and its employees engaged in municipal sanitation and clerical work was an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, so the Government&#039;s reference to the Tribunal was competent. The Tribunal&#039;s findings of victimisation and wrongful dismissal were also left undisturbed, as they did not justify writ interference absent grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant illegality. The award of reinstatement therefore stood.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2015 11:07:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=389540" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1952 (12) TMI 31 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170990</link>
      <description>Municipal undertakings performing sanitation, conservancy and other public utility functions can fall within the statutory meaning of &quot;industry&quot; when construed broadly and purposively in light of modern industrial conditions. On that footing, a dispute between a municipality and its employees engaged in municipal sanitation and clerical work was an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, so the Government&#039;s reference to the Tribunal was competent. The Tribunal&#039;s findings of victimisation and wrongful dismissal were also left undisturbed, as they did not justify writ interference absent grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant illegality. The award of reinstatement therefore stood.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170990</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>