<?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 (10) TMI 1474 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195486</link>
    <description>In company winding up, the statutory cessation point for workmen&#039;s service is the winding up order under section 445(3) of the Companies Act, 1956; appointment of a Provisional Liquidator does not by itself terminate employment. On that basis, workmen&#039;s dues were to be computed up to the winding up order, with wages, gratuity and retrenchment-related dues recalculated accordingly. Bonus was excluded from priority workmen&#039;s dues, provident fund claims were to be pursued through the provident fund authorities, and interest was not an immediate priority claim. Badli workmen were not automatically barred, but had to establish the requisite service facts before entitlement to closure or retrenchment benefits could be examined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2019 15:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=494324" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (10) TMI 1474 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195486</link>
      <description>In company winding up, the statutory cessation point for workmen&#039;s service is the winding up order under section 445(3) of the Companies Act, 1956; appointment of a Provisional Liquidator does not by itself terminate employment. On that basis, workmen&#039;s dues were to be computed up to the winding up order, with wages, gratuity and retrenchment-related dues recalculated accordingly. Bonus was excluded from priority workmen&#039;s dues, provident fund claims were to be pursued through the provident fund authorities, and interest was not an immediate priority claim. Badli workmen were not automatically barred, but had to establish the requisite service facts before entitlement to closure or retrenchment benefits could be examined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195486</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>