<?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>1980 (11) TMI 165 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183590</link>
    <description>Rule 31 permits correction only of clerical mistakes or accidental slips, so it cannot be used to introduce a fresh substantive benefit into an award. On that basis, the attempted corrigendum that would have converted an integrated wage-scale increase into a separate cash increase for each workman was beyond jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. On dearness allowance, there is no universal requirement that it must always track the cost of living index; the Tribunal&#039;s balanced wage package, including basic wages, dearness allowance and house rent allowance, was treated as a matter of industrial adjudication, and the challenge to that structure failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2016 14:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=431565" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (11) TMI 165 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183590</link>
      <description>Rule 31 permits correction only of clerical mistakes or accidental slips, so it cannot be used to introduce a fresh substantive benefit into an award. On that basis, the attempted corrigendum that would have converted an integrated wage-scale increase into a separate cash increase for each workman was beyond jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. On dearness allowance, there is no universal requirement that it must always track the cost of living index; the Tribunal&#039;s balanced wage package, including basic wages, dearness allowance and house rent allowance, was treated as a matter of industrial adjudication, and the challenge to that structure failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183590</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>