<?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 125 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191718</link>
    <description>Abolition of all posts does not amount to a mere reduction in the number of persons employed within the meaning of Section 31 of the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act. Section 31 applies where an employer proposes a change in standing orders or in an industrial matter covered by Schedule II, including a permanent or semi-permanent reduction in staff. The Court reasoned that reduction presupposes that some posts or employees remain after the change; the wholesale abolition of an establishment or all its posts falls outside that ordinary meaning. Accordingly, Section 31 was not attracted and the procedural requirements under that provision did not apply.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Apr 2017 14:44:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=465899" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (4) TMI 125 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191718</link>
      <description>Abolition of all posts does not amount to a mere reduction in the number of persons employed within the meaning of Section 31 of the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act. Section 31 applies where an employer proposes a change in standing orders or in an industrial matter covered by Schedule II, including a permanent or semi-permanent reduction in staff. The Court reasoned that reduction presupposes that some posts or employees remain after the change; the wholesale abolition of an establishment or all its posts falls outside that ordinary meaning. Accordingly, Section 31 was not attracted and the procedural requirements under that provision did not apply.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191718</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>