<?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>1954 (11) TMI 56 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276748</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court held that workers are not entitled to a bonus when the employer incurs a trading loss, emphasizing that bonuses should only be paid out of profits. The Court clarified that workers have no claim to reserves or undistributed profits from previous years and criticized the use of social justice considerations to justify bonus awards. The decision reversed the Labour Appellate Tribunal&#039;s ruling, reinforcing the principle that bonuses must be based on actual profits and not other financial sources.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2018 16:47:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=542253" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1954 (11) TMI 56 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276748</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court held that workers are not entitled to a bonus when the employer incurs a trading loss, emphasizing that bonuses should only be paid out of profits. The Court clarified that workers have no claim to reserves or undistributed profits from previous years and criticized the use of social justice considerations to justify bonus awards. The decision reversed the Labour Appellate Tribunal&#039;s ruling, reinforcing the principle that bonuses must be based on actual profits and not other financial sources.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276748</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>