https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195510 Under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, employees were required to act in proceedings through the representative of employees, with the representative union having priority under the statutory scheme. Once that union had validly appeared and accepted a compromise, the provisos to Sections 32 and 33 prevented dissenting employees from separately contesting the same matter in the proceeding. The compromise therefore bound all employees represented by the union, and the opposing employees could not continue the appeal independently. en-us Fri, 10 Oct 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Nov 2017 13:08:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195510 Under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, employees were required to act in proceedings through the representative of employees, with the representative union having priority under the statutory scheme. Once that union had validly appeared and accepted a compromise, the provisos to Sections 32 and 33 prevented dissenting employees from separately contesting the same matter in the proceeding. The compromise therefore bound all employees represented by the union, and the opposing employees could not continue the appeal independently. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 10 Oct 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195510