<?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>1986 (4) TMI 355 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199938</link>
    <description>Where separate units operate as a functionally integrated whole in the ordinary industrial sense, closure of one unit is treated as closure of the industrial establishment and attracts prior permission under section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; mere separate registration does not alter that character. On the facts, the Churchgate Division and the Trombay factory were held to be one establishment, so closure without prior permission was illegal. An illegal closure left the workmen entitled to service benefits under the settlement until lawful termination, and non-payment of those benefits amounted to failure to implement the settlement, constituting an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2018 14:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512844" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (4) TMI 355 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199938</link>
      <description>Where separate units operate as a functionally integrated whole in the ordinary industrial sense, closure of one unit is treated as closure of the industrial establishment and attracts prior permission under section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; mere separate registration does not alter that character. On the facts, the Churchgate Division and the Trombay factory were held to be one establishment, so closure without prior permission was illegal. An illegal closure left the workmen entitled to service benefits under the settlement until lawful termination, and non-payment of those benefits amounted to failure to implement the settlement, constituting an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199938</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>