https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376580 SC treated the finding that the workman had not completed the statutory period of continuous service as a factual determination and held that, absent perversity, legal error, or evidentiary infirmity, it was not open to fresh reassessment in appeal under Article 136. It also affirmed that payments made to a workman under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act during pendency of litigation are independent statutory relief and are not recoverable merely because the employer ultimately succeeds in the main dispute. The challenge to the continuous service finding failed, while protection against recovery of the Section 17B was maintained. en-us Tue, 12 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Mar 2019 07:30:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376580 SC treated the finding that the workman had not completed the statutory period of continuous service as a factual determination and held that, absent perversity, legal error, or evidentiary infirmity, it was not open to fresh reassessment in appeal under Article 136. It also affirmed that payments made to a workman under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act during pendency of litigation are independent statutory relief and are not recoverable merely because the employer ultimately succeeds in the main dispute. The challenge to the continuous service finding failed, while protection against recovery of the Section 17B was maintained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 12 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376580