<?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>1958 (11) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199937</link>
    <description>The profession of a solicitor was held not to be an &quot;industry&quot; under the Industrial Disputes Act because the statutory terms &quot;business&quot;, &quot;trade&quot;, &quot;undertaking&quot; and &quot;calling&quot; do not extend to a learned profession driven mainly by the practitioner&#039;s personal skill, knowledge and judgment. The scheme of the Act was read as requiring a real master-servant relationship and combined labour in an enterprise, which was absent here because the staff performed only ministerial tasks such as typing and bookkeeping. The dispute was therefore not an industrial dispute, and the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2018 14:32:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512841" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (11) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199937</link>
      <description>The profession of a solicitor was held not to be an &quot;industry&quot; under the Industrial Disputes Act because the statutory terms &quot;business&quot;, &quot;trade&quot;, &quot;undertaking&quot; and &quot;calling&quot; do not extend to a learned profession driven mainly by the practitioner&#039;s personal skill, knowledge and judgment. The scheme of the Act was read as requiring a real master-servant relationship and combined labour in an enterprise, which was absent here because the staff performed only ministerial tasks such as typing and bookkeeping. The dispute was therefore not an industrial dispute, and the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199937</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>