<?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>1996 (2) TMI 565 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182634</link>
    <description>The judgment addressed the interpretation of statutory rules for Extra-Departmental Agents in the Postal Department, emphasizing their contractual employment nature and termination procedures. It determined that Extra-Departmental Agents are considered workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, entitling them to reinstatement for illegal termination without notice or compensation. The judgment also outlined the penalties that can be imposed on these agents and clarified their status as civil servants, excluding them from the category of workmen under the Act. The case highlighted the importance of following legal procedures and protecting employee rights in such employment scenarios.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 May 2016 15:03:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=428356" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (2) TMI 565 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182634</link>
      <description>The judgment addressed the interpretation of statutory rules for Extra-Departmental Agents in the Postal Department, emphasizing their contractual employment nature and termination procedures. It determined that Extra-Departmental Agents are considered workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, entitling them to reinstatement for illegal termination without notice or compensation. The judgment also outlined the penalties that can be imposed on these agents and clarified their status as civil servants, excluding them from the category of workmen under the Act. The case highlighted the importance of following legal procedures and protecting employee rights in such employment scenarios.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182634</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>