<?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>1966 (10) TMI 164 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275896</link>
    <description>In a government-owned public sector undertaking with separate corporate existence, wage fixation follows the same region-cum-industry principles applied to private sector industries unless a legally relevant distinction is shown. The dearness allowance arrangement, including the link to the cost of living index and house rent allowance, was upheld because the Tribunal treated wages as a total package and no double benefit was established. The gratuity scheme was also sustained as a fair retiral benefit alongside provident fund, given the undertaking&#039;s capacity to bear it. The retirement age was interfered with and raised to 60 years, and uncontrolled managerial discretion to extend service after superannuation was not sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2018 13:12:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=539098" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (10) TMI 164 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275896</link>
      <description>In a government-owned public sector undertaking with separate corporate existence, wage fixation follows the same region-cum-industry principles applied to private sector industries unless a legally relevant distinction is shown. The dearness allowance arrangement, including the link to the cost of living index and house rent allowance, was upheld because the Tribunal treated wages as a total package and no double benefit was established. The gratuity scheme was also sustained as a fair retiral benefit alongside provident fund, given the undertaking&#039;s capacity to bear it. The retirement age was interfered with and raised to 60 years, and uncontrolled managerial discretion to extend service after superannuation was not sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275896</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>