<?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>1976 (4) TMI 232 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288024</link>
    <description>A writ of mandamus to compel an industrial reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act is limited by the administrative nature of the appropriate Government&#039;s satisfaction under Sections 10 and 12. The Court does not reappraise the merits of that satisfaction or test the adequacy of the reasons, but may interfere where refusal is based on irrelevant or foreign considerations. On the facts, the Government declined reference because the claimant was treated as a supervisory employee outside the definition of workman, which was a relevant consideration. Mandamus was therefore not warranted and the refusal to refer the dispute was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Apr 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 May 2020 13:10:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=612913" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (4) TMI 232 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288024</link>
      <description>A writ of mandamus to compel an industrial reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act is limited by the administrative nature of the appropriate Government&#039;s satisfaction under Sections 10 and 12. The Court does not reappraise the merits of that satisfaction or test the adequacy of the reasons, but may interfere where refusal is based on irrelevant or foreign considerations. On the facts, the Government declined reference because the claimant was treated as a supervisory employee outside the definition of workman, which was a relevant consideration. Mandamus was therefore not warranted and the refusal to refer the dispute was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Apr 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288024</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>