<?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>1955 (3) TMI 43 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195220</link>
    <description>The Payment of Wages Act, 1936 confers a limited jurisdiction on the Authority under section 15 to decide claims for deductions from wages or delay in payment of wages, including the wages actually due under the employment contract and permissible deductions. It does not extend to disputes whose true substance is that an employee should have been placed in a higher cadre or wage classification so as to receive a higher scale of pay, where entitlement depends on administrative upgradation rather than an unlawful deduction from admitted wages. On that basis, the majority view was that the claim fell outside jurisdiction; Jagannadhadas, J. dissented, treating the dispute as one concerning wages payable under the applicable classification scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2017 13:07:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=493134" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1955 (3) TMI 43 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195220</link>
      <description>The Payment of Wages Act, 1936 confers a limited jurisdiction on the Authority under section 15 to decide claims for deductions from wages or delay in payment of wages, including the wages actually due under the employment contract and permissible deductions. It does not extend to disputes whose true substance is that an employee should have been placed in a higher cadre or wage classification so as to receive a higher scale of pay, where entitlement depends on administrative upgradation rather than an unlawful deduction from admitted wages. On that basis, the majority view was that the claim fell outside jurisdiction; Jagannadhadas, J. dissented, treating the dispute as one concerning wages payable under the applicable classification scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195220</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>