<?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>2003 (12) TMI 625 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171562</link>
    <description>The Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 treats departments, undertakings and branches as part of the same establishment, but separate treatment applies where distinct balance sheets and profit and loss accounts are maintained for the relevant accounting year. Minimum bonus remains protected under Section 10, while Section 34 and its third proviso preserve the statutory floor even where a different bonus formula is used. Section 34-A gives overriding effect to the Act, and rules under Section 32 cannot displace its substantive provisions. On the stated facts, the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Banks had separate accounts and distinct corporate existence, so their employees were not entitled to bonus at the same rate as the Apex Bank&#039;s employees and the Banks were treated as separate establishments for bonus computation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2015 12:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=391183" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 625 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171562</link>
      <description>The Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 treats departments, undertakings and branches as part of the same establishment, but separate treatment applies where distinct balance sheets and profit and loss accounts are maintained for the relevant accounting year. Minimum bonus remains protected under Section 10, while Section 34 and its third proviso preserve the statutory floor even where a different bonus formula is used. Section 34-A gives overriding effect to the Act, and rules under Section 32 cannot displace its substantive provisions. On the stated facts, the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Banks had separate accounts and distinct corporate existence, so their employees were not entitled to bonus at the same rate as the Apex Bank&#039;s employees and the Banks were treated as separate establishments for bonus computation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171562</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>