<?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>1951 (4) TMI 25 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174969</link>
    <description>Strict compliance with the statutory scheme for constituting an Industrial Tribunal was required, because the Tribunal had to be notified with named members and function as a joint body. Section 8 was limited to filling vacancies by substitute appointment and did not permit the remaining members to act as a valid Tribunal after one member&#039;s services ceased, absent a fresh notification. The absence of any express vacancy-saving provision was decisive. Awards made by two members during the vacancy, and the later award signed after the absent member rejoined without fresh constitution, were without jurisdiction and therefore invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2015 14:51:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=403793" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1951 (4) TMI 25 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174969</link>
      <description>Strict compliance with the statutory scheme for constituting an Industrial Tribunal was required, because the Tribunal had to be notified with named members and function as a joint body. Section 8 was limited to filling vacancies by substitute appointment and did not permit the remaining members to act as a valid Tribunal after one member&#039;s services ceased, absent a fresh notification. The absence of any express vacancy-saving provision was decisive. Awards made by two members during the vacancy, and the later award signed after the absent member rejoined without fresh constitution, were without jurisdiction and therefore invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174969</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>