<?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 (8) TMI 730 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281033</link>
    <description>Where a workman&#039;s service conditions are governed by standing orders and the Industrial Disputes Act, the statutory industrial dispute machinery is the exclusive remedy, so a civil suit challenging termination was barred by implied exclusion of civil court jurisdiction. The termination of a probationer was held to be simpliciter for unsatisfactory performance, not punitive or stigmatic; in such a case no prior disciplinary enquiry is required and reinstatement with back wages cannot be sustained. The appeal succeeded, the decrees below were set aside, and the respondent was discharged without further service benefits beyond amounts already paid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Apr 2024 12:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=573481" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (8) TMI 730 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281033</link>
      <description>Where a workman&#039;s service conditions are governed by standing orders and the Industrial Disputes Act, the statutory industrial dispute machinery is the exclusive remedy, so a civil suit challenging termination was barred by implied exclusion of civil court jurisdiction. The termination of a probationer was held to be simpliciter for unsatisfactory performance, not punitive or stigmatic; in such a case no prior disciplinary enquiry is required and reinstatement with back wages cannot be sustained. The appeal succeeded, the decrees below were set aside, and the respondent was discharged without further service benefits beyond amounts already paid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281033</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>