<?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>1975 (9) TMI 175 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172702</link>
    <description>When exercising statutory power to refer an industrial dispute, the Executive must consider all relevant material and avoid misdirecting itself in law. A refusal based on a failure to examine a special contractual arrangement, where labour-related expenditure was borne by the company and the contractor received only a fixed fee, is legally vulnerable. The dispute was not confined to bonus entitlement and quantum, but also included who would be liable to pay the bonus. The refusal to include the company in the reference and to refer liability for adjudication was therefore unsustainable, and the matter had to be reconsidered in light of the relevant facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2015 18:10:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395021" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (9) TMI 175 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172702</link>
      <description>When exercising statutory power to refer an industrial dispute, the Executive must consider all relevant material and avoid misdirecting itself in law. A refusal based on a failure to examine a special contractual arrangement, where labour-related expenditure was borne by the company and the contractor received only a fixed fee, is legally vulnerable. The dispute was not confined to bonus entitlement and quantum, but also included who would be liable to pay the bonus. The refusal to include the company in the reference and to refer liability for adjudication was therefore unsustainable, and the matter had to be reconsidered in light of the relevant facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172702</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>