<?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>1951 (5) TMI 20 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287989</link>
    <description>The meaning of &quot;appropriate Government&quot; under the Industrial Disputes Act depends on whether the industry is carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government. A company operating its own catering and mineral water business under an exclusive railway-property contract was not treated as a Government-owned or Government-run industry merely because the contract imposed control. The employees were therefore the company&#039;s workmen, and the dispute was one between the company and its employees. On that basis, the State Government was competent to refer the industrial dispute, and the reference was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 May 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 May 2020 13:55:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=612832" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1951 (5) TMI 20 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287989</link>
      <description>The meaning of &quot;appropriate Government&quot; under the Industrial Disputes Act depends on whether the industry is carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government. A company operating its own catering and mineral water business under an exclusive railway-property contract was not treated as a Government-owned or Government-run industry merely because the contract imposed control. The employees were therefore the company&#039;s workmen, and the dispute was one between the company and its employees. On that basis, the State Government was competent to refer the industrial dispute, and the reference was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 May 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287989</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>