<?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>1956 (12) TMI 42 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173712</link>
    <description>A minimum wage notification for tea plantation labourers was construed as preserving the existing task-based workload rather than replacing it with an isolated time-rate. Reading the notification with the Government&#039;s contemporaneous conduct and the prior task structure, the Court treated the prescribed minimum wages as linked to the stipulated quantity of leaves to be plucked. Labourers were therefore entitled to the fixed basic wage for the specified task and to extra payment at the prevailing rate for work beyond that task. The concurrent findings on entitlement to extra wages were upheld, and no interference was made.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:49:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=398144" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (12) TMI 42 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173712</link>
      <description>A minimum wage notification for tea plantation labourers was construed as preserving the existing task-based workload rather than replacing it with an isolated time-rate. Reading the notification with the Government&#039;s contemporaneous conduct and the prior task structure, the Court treated the prescribed minimum wages as linked to the stipulated quantity of leaves to be plucked. Labourers were therefore entitled to the fixed basic wage for the specified task and to extra payment at the prevailing rate for work beyond that task. The concurrent findings on entitlement to extra wages were upheld, and no interference was made.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173712</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>