<?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>1983 (9) TMI 318 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173372</link>
    <description>Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act must be construed by looking to the real and predominant nature of the employee&#039;s duties, not by a narrow reading of the categories of manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work. A Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation, who was a whole-time employee without power to bind the corporation, appoint or discipline agents, or exercise administrative control, and whose functions were limited to business development, recruitment, training and assistance to agents, was not performing managerial or administrative work. He was therefore a workman within Section 2(s), and the maintainability objection failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=397180" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (9) TMI 318 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173372</link>
      <description>Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act must be construed by looking to the real and predominant nature of the employee&#039;s duties, not by a narrow reading of the categories of manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work. A Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation, who was a whole-time employee without power to bind the corporation, appoint or discipline agents, or exercise administrative control, and whose functions were limited to business development, recruitment, training and assistance to agents, was not performing managerial or administrative work. He was therefore a workman within Section 2(s), and the maintainability objection failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173372</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>