<?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>1968 (12) TMI 105 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200250</link>
    <description>Compensation payable on termination under Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act was treated as capable of falling within &quot;wages&quot; under the amended Payment of Wages Act where the governing law creates a payment obligation without fixing the time of payment. However, the Authority under Section 15(2) was confined to unauthorised deductions and delayed payment of wages already due and not genuinely disputed. A contested claim requiring inquiry into continuity of employment, comparative service conditions, and the new employer&#039;s liability could not be tried there and had to be pursued before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2018 12:50:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=514523" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (12) TMI 105 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200250</link>
      <description>Compensation payable on termination under Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act was treated as capable of falling within &quot;wages&quot; under the amended Payment of Wages Act where the governing law creates a payment obligation without fixing the time of payment. However, the Authority under Section 15(2) was confined to unauthorised deductions and delayed payment of wages already due and not genuinely disputed. A contested claim requiring inquiry into continuity of employment, comparative service conditions, and the new employer&#039;s liability could not be tried there and had to be pursued before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200250</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>