<?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>1975 (9) TMI 178 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175947</link>
    <description>Government officers are not excluded per se from appointment as &quot;independent persons&quot; on wage committees and advisory boards under the Minimum Wages Act, because the statutory language contrasts them with employer and employee representatives rather than with Government servants. The inclusion of such officers is therefore not invalid merely on that ground, though independence may require scrutiny where the Government has a direct interest in the scheduled employment. An irregularly appointed sub-committee and the board&#039;s reliance on its report did not vitiate the minimum wages notification, since the board&#039;s role under section 5(1)(a) was advisory and the irregularity did not go to the root of the Government&#039;s final decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2015 12:50:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=408237" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (9) TMI 178 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175947</link>
      <description>Government officers are not excluded per se from appointment as &quot;independent persons&quot; on wage committees and advisory boards under the Minimum Wages Act, because the statutory language contrasts them with employer and employee representatives rather than with Government servants. The inclusion of such officers is therefore not invalid merely on that ground, though independence may require scrutiny where the Government has a direct interest in the scheduled employment. An irregularly appointed sub-committee and the board&#039;s reliance on its report did not vitiate the minimum wages notification, since the board&#039;s role under section 5(1)(a) was advisory and the irregularity did not go to the root of the Government&#039;s final decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175947</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>