<?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>1962 (8) TMI 100 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193005</link>
    <description>In industrial dismissal disputes, the phrase &quot;in accordance with law&quot; was held to include the industrial law requirement of a proper and fair enquiry by management, so a dismissal could be tested against fairness, perversity, mala fides, and victimisation. The Labour Commissioner was found to have jurisdiction to examine the legality of the dismissal even where the management enquiry was alleged to be absent or defective. A finding that no enquiry had been held was treated as perverse because the record showed examination of witnesses and enquiry papers, making it liable to correction in writ jurisdiction. The dismissal order was upheld and the employee&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2017 16:09:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=479962" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (8) TMI 100 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193005</link>
      <description>In industrial dismissal disputes, the phrase &quot;in accordance with law&quot; was held to include the industrial law requirement of a proper and fair enquiry by management, so a dismissal could be tested against fairness, perversity, mala fides, and victimisation. The Labour Commissioner was found to have jurisdiction to examine the legality of the dismissal even where the management enquiry was alleged to be absent or defective. A finding that no enquiry had been held was treated as perverse because the record showed examination of witnesses and enquiry papers, making it liable to correction in writ jurisdiction. The dismissal order was upheld and the employee&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193005</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>