<?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>1979 (1) TMI 245 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199941</link>
    <description>A discharged cooperative society employee&#039;s claim for reinstatement with back wages was held not to be a dispute referable to the Registrar or nominee under the cooperative societies law, because the statutory expression &quot;any dispute&quot; was confined to civil disputes ordinarily triable by civil courts. The Court also held that such a termination dispute did not touch the society&#039;s &quot;business&quot; or &quot;management&quot;; those words were read as referring to the society&#039;s commercial activity, not service conditions or wrongful discharge. The dispute was therefore an industrial dispute within labour law, and the Labour Court retained jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2018 14:59:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512850" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (1) TMI 245 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199941</link>
      <description>A discharged cooperative society employee&#039;s claim for reinstatement with back wages was held not to be a dispute referable to the Registrar or nominee under the cooperative societies law, because the statutory expression &quot;any dispute&quot; was confined to civil disputes ordinarily triable by civil courts. The Court also held that such a termination dispute did not touch the society&#039;s &quot;business&quot; or &quot;management&quot;; those words were read as referring to the society&#039;s commercial activity, not service conditions or wrongful discharge. The dispute was therefore an industrial dispute within labour law, and the Labour Court retained jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199941</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>