<?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>1959 (5) TMI 52 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276026</link>
    <description>An industrial tribunal jurisdiction objection under Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act failed because it was not raised before the tribunal and lacked the factual foundation needed to question the member&#039;s qualification. The dismissal also failed on merits because the employer&#039;s enquiry breached natural justice: adverse witnesses were not examined in the workman&#039;s presence, their statements were not shown to him, and he was not given a fair opportunity to meet the evidence. The defect could have been cured only by producing the witnesses before the adjudicatory forum, which the employer did not do. The award was sustained and compensation was confined to the amount already deposited.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2018 18:03:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=539573" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (5) TMI 52 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276026</link>
      <description>An industrial tribunal jurisdiction objection under Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act failed because it was not raised before the tribunal and lacked the factual foundation needed to question the member&#039;s qualification. The dismissal also failed on merits because the employer&#039;s enquiry breached natural justice: adverse witnesses were not examined in the workman&#039;s presence, their statements were not shown to him, and he was not given a fair opportunity to meet the evidence. The defect could have been cured only by producing the witnesses before the adjudicatory forum, which the employer did not do. The award was sustained and compensation was confined to the amount already deposited.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276026</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>