<?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>1974 (1) TMI 109 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173994</link>
    <description>The Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 was analysed as a labour welfare measure regulating conditions of employment in a fragmented industry, and not as an impermissible regulation of trade or business. Its licensing scheme and labour-welfare obligations were upheld because they rested on objective criteria, recorded reasons, and appeal safeguards, and the restrictions were justified by the statute&#039;s social purpose. The definitional, leave, notice, maternity and rejection provisions, including the rules, were also sustained as valid and workable for both factory and home workers, with liability allocated to the person engaging labour or controlling the establishment. The challenge to the impugned provisions therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Sep 2015 10:46:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=398932" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (1) TMI 109 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173994</link>
      <description>The Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 was analysed as a labour welfare measure regulating conditions of employment in a fragmented industry, and not as an impermissible regulation of trade or business. Its licensing scheme and labour-welfare obligations were upheld because they rested on objective criteria, recorded reasons, and appeal safeguards, and the restrictions were justified by the statute&#039;s social purpose. The definitional, leave, notice, maternity and rejection provisions, including the rules, were also sustained as valid and workable for both factory and home workers, with liability allocated to the person engaging labour or controlling the establishment. The challenge to the impugned provisions therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173994</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>