<?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>1998 (12) TMI 616 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185220</link>
    <description>Certified standing orders, once finally brought into force under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, govern representation in domestic enquiries. The law does not recognise an absolute natural justice right for a workman to be represented by a person of choice in disciplinary proceedings; any such right depends on statute, service rules, or standing orders. A restriction limiting representation to a co-employee of the same establishment was treated as rational, since the representative would be familiar with workplace conditions and service rules. The restriction was therefore valid, and representation by a non-employee trade union office-bearer was not permitted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2016 12:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=437299" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (12) TMI 616 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185220</link>
      <description>Certified standing orders, once finally brought into force under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, govern representation in domestic enquiries. The law does not recognise an absolute natural justice right for a workman to be represented by a person of choice in disciplinary proceedings; any such right depends on statute, service rules, or standing orders. A restriction limiting representation to a co-employee of the same establishment was treated as rational, since the representative would be familiar with workplace conditions and service rules. The restriction was therefore valid, and representation by a non-employee trade union office-bearer was not permitted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185220</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>