<?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>1971 (11) TMI 165 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184020</link>
    <description>An organisation may fall within &quot;industry&quot; under the Industrial Disputes Act where it carries on systematic, continuous and business-like activity with cooperation of employer and employees in providing material services; charitable or public-utility objects and non-distribution of profits do not exclude it. On that approach, the Federation&#039;s trade-promotion, exhibition, publication, arbitration and advisory functions brought it within section 2(j). The termination of a workman was also held unjustified because the alleged misconduct, based on notices issued to recover dues, was not grave enough to warrant discharge and the punishment was excessively disproportionate, amounting to victimisation. The award of reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Nov 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:27:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=433072" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (11) TMI 165 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184020</link>
      <description>An organisation may fall within &quot;industry&quot; under the Industrial Disputes Act where it carries on systematic, continuous and business-like activity with cooperation of employer and employees in providing material services; charitable or public-utility objects and non-distribution of profits do not exclude it. On that approach, the Federation&#039;s trade-promotion, exhibition, publication, arbitration and advisory functions brought it within section 2(j). The termination of a workman was also held unjustified because the alleged misconduct, based on notices issued to recover dues, was not grave enough to warrant discharge and the punishment was excessively disproportionate, amounting to victimisation. The award of reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Nov 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184020</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>