https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190403 A binding industrial settlement granting a pay roll check-off facility remained operative because it had not been lawfully terminated or replaced. The later memorandum did not cover that facility, so it did not displace the earlier settlement. A unilateral Government Order withdrawing the facility could not override a settlement binding under the Industrial Disputes Act, and the Corporation's consequential notification also failed because it rested on that invalid direction and no valid termination under Section 19(2) was shown. The document also notes that the Union, as recognised sole bargaining agent, had standing to maintain the challenge. en-us Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Feb 2017 17:20:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190403 A binding industrial settlement granting a pay roll check-off facility remained operative because it had not been lawfully terminated or replaced. The later memorandum did not cover that facility, so it did not displace the earlier settlement. A unilateral Government Order withdrawing the facility could not override a settlement binding under the Industrial Disputes Act, and the Corporation's consequential notification also failed because it rested on that invalid direction and no valid termination under Section 19(2) was shown. The document also notes that the Union, as recognised sole bargaining agent, had standing to maintain the challenge. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190403