<?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>1964 (4) TMI 122 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185866</link>
    <description>The Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962 was treated as a substantive exercise of independent legislative power, not a mere validating statute, because the Legislature itself fixed the wage rates and only used Central Act definitions as a drafting device. Retrospective enforceability of minimum wages was upheld as a reasonable restriction under Articles 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g), since the law did not make wages payable for all purposes from the earlier date and no unreasonable employer burden was shown. The Act also did not offend Article 20(1), because penal liability could not attach to conduct before the legal duty became operative. The constitutional challenge therefore failed on all grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2016 11:16:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=439670" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (4) TMI 122 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185866</link>
      <description>The Madhya Pradesh Minimum Wages Fixation Act, 1962 was treated as a substantive exercise of independent legislative power, not a mere validating statute, because the Legislature itself fixed the wage rates and only used Central Act definitions as a drafting device. Retrospective enforceability of minimum wages was upheld as a reasonable restriction under Articles 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g), since the law did not make wages payable for all purposes from the earlier date and no unreasonable employer burden was shown. The Act also did not offend Article 20(1), because penal liability could not attach to conduct before the legal duty became operative. The constitutional challenge therefore failed on all grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185866</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>