<?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>2013 (11) TMI 1699 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192682</link>
    <description>Section 47(1) of the Persons with Disabilities Act imposes a mandatory duty on an employer not to terminate an employee who acquires disability during service. If the employee cannot continue in the original post, the employer must provide alternate employment with the same pay and service benefits, or keep the employee on a supernumerary post until a suitable post becomes available or superannuation. The Bombay High Court noted that this statutory protection cannot be defeated by a request for compassionate appointment for a family member or by delay, and it sustained the Industrial Court&#039;s view that termination without such protection was unlawful.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Jun 2017 16:47:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=472029" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 1699 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192682</link>
      <description>Section 47(1) of the Persons with Disabilities Act imposes a mandatory duty on an employer not to terminate an employee who acquires disability during service. If the employee cannot continue in the original post, the employer must provide alternate employment with the same pay and service benefits, or keep the employee on a supernumerary post until a suitable post becomes available or superannuation. The Bombay High Court noted that this statutory protection cannot be defeated by a request for compassionate appointment for a family member or by delay, and it sustained the Industrial Court&#039;s view that termination without such protection was unlawful.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192682</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>