<?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>1963 (11) TMI 103 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293338</link>
    <description>Employees transferred to the Corporation retained their existing service conditions until altered under the Act and the governing order. The Central Government order under section 11(2) governed termination for the covered class, so the Corporation&#039;s regulations could not override clause 10 or create an independent power of discharge. Any termination had to follow the procedure in clause 10(a) or 10(b). In the individual case, the Corporation could not compel acceptance of a lower or different post; at most, remuneration could be fixed within the prescribed grade, with refusal attracting only the consequences contemplated by section 11(2).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Nov 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2021 11:33:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=635566" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (11) TMI 103 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293338</link>
      <description>Employees transferred to the Corporation retained their existing service conditions until altered under the Act and the governing order. The Central Government order under section 11(2) governed termination for the covered class, so the Corporation&#039;s regulations could not override clause 10 or create an independent power of discharge. Any termination had to follow the procedure in clause 10(a) or 10(b). In the individual case, the Corporation could not compel acceptance of a lower or different post; at most, remuneration could be fixed within the prescribed grade, with refusal attracting only the consequences contemplated by section 11(2).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Nov 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293338</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>