<?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 (10) TMI 76 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197011</link>
    <description>On transfer of an industrial undertaking, successor-in-interest status depends on the substance of the transaction, including continuity of the business, same place of operation, and continuation of the same industrial activity, even if some assets or liabilities are excluded. The transfer in question satisfied that test, so the transferee was treated as the vendor concern&#039;s successor. Section 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act required workmen to receive notice and compensation on transfer unless the proviso preserved continuity of service; it did not give them a right to re-employment by the transferee under section 25-H. The workmen&#039;s remedy was confined to statutory compensation, not absorption by the transferee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2018 10:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=500769" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (10) TMI 76 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197011</link>
      <description>On transfer of an industrial undertaking, successor-in-interest status depends on the substance of the transaction, including continuity of the business, same place of operation, and continuation of the same industrial activity, even if some assets or liabilities are excluded. The transfer in question satisfied that test, so the transferee was treated as the vendor concern&#039;s successor. Section 25-FF of the Industrial Disputes Act required workmen to receive notice and compensation on transfer unless the proviso preserved continuity of service; it did not give them a right to re-employment by the transferee under section 25-H. The workmen&#039;s remedy was confined to statutory compensation, not absorption by the transferee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197011</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>