<?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>2005 (12) TMI 562 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175523</link>
    <description>Section 6(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 permits only correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes and accidental slips or omissions. The provision is analogous to Section 152 CPC and is confined to ministerial corrections; it cannot be used to alter, add to, or vary the substantive terms of a final award, or to reopen the merits under the guise of correction. The omission sought to be corrected must be unintentional and non-substantive. Applying these principles, the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to modify the award to grant back wages, and the High Court should not have upheld that modification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2015 21:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=406390" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 562 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175523</link>
      <description>Section 6(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 permits only correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes and accidental slips or omissions. The provision is analogous to Section 152 CPC and is confined to ministerial corrections; it cannot be used to alter, add to, or vary the substantive terms of a final award, or to reopen the merits under the guise of correction. The omission sought to be corrected must be unintentional and non-substantive. Applying these principles, the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to modify the award to grant back wages, and the High Court should not have upheld that modification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175523</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>