<?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>1956 (10) TMI 39 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272513</link>
    <description>An industrial award, once fully adjudicated, retains finality and cannot be reopened in a later reference absent a material change in circumstances; the principle of res judicata was treated as applicable to industrial adjudication, so the earlier wage award bound the parties. Bonus can be granted only where distributable profits are sufficient to justify distribution among all eligible workmen, and an extra bonus for one section was held unsustainable when the available surplus was inadequate. On the employee claims, only compensation for one workman was upheld, while reinstatement and the remaining compensation claims were rejected on the facts and the law then applicable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 May 2018 11:17:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=519429" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (10) TMI 39 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272513</link>
      <description>An industrial award, once fully adjudicated, retains finality and cannot be reopened in a later reference absent a material change in circumstances; the principle of res judicata was treated as applicable to industrial adjudication, so the earlier wage award bound the parties. Bonus can be granted only where distributable profits are sufficient to justify distribution among all eligible workmen, and an extra bonus for one section was held unsustainable when the available surplus was inadequate. On the employee claims, only compensation for one workman was upheld, while reinstatement and the remaining compensation claims were rejected on the facts and the law then applicable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272513</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>