<?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>2005 (2) TMI 890 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278595</link>
    <description>Withdrawal of an earlier writ petition without liberty did not create a res judicata bar to a later industrial dispute, because the writ had not been decided on merits and statutory labour remedies remained distinct. The Court also reiterated that stale industrial claims need not be entertained and that relief such as reinstatement is discretionary; the Labour Court could properly consider delay, short and ad hoc service, acceptance of other employment, and third-party rights. On that basis, the Labour Court&#039;s refusal of relief was not arbitrary, and writ interference by the High Court was unwarranted. The appeal was allowed and the Labour Court&#039;s award was restored in effect.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2025 10:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=557703" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 890 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278595</link>
      <description>Withdrawal of an earlier writ petition without liberty did not create a res judicata bar to a later industrial dispute, because the writ had not been decided on merits and statutory labour remedies remained distinct. The Court also reiterated that stale industrial claims need not be entertained and that relief such as reinstatement is discretionary; the Labour Court could properly consider delay, short and ad hoc service, acceptance of other employment, and third-party rights. On that basis, the Labour Court&#039;s refusal of relief was not arbitrary, and writ interference by the High Court was unwarranted. The appeal was allowed and the Labour Court&#039;s award was restored in effect.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278595</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>