<?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>1968 (1) TMI 59 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293959</link>
    <description>Certified standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 operate as statutory terms of employment binding on both employer and workmen. Because the Act creates a mandatory scheme for certification, modification, publication, enforcement, and dispute resolution, parties cannot bypass it through a private service contract on matters covered by the standing orders. A contractual term inconsistent with certified standing orders is ineffective, and such a bargain was also treated as falling within Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The HC therefore held that the standing orders prevail over the conflicting contract term.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2021 18:34:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=638679" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (1) TMI 59 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293959</link>
      <description>Certified standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 operate as statutory terms of employment binding on both employer and workmen. Because the Act creates a mandatory scheme for certification, modification, publication, enforcement, and dispute resolution, parties cannot bypass it through a private service contract on matters covered by the standing orders. A contractual term inconsistent with certified standing orders is ineffective, and such a bargain was also treated as falling within Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The HC therefore held that the standing orders prevail over the conflicting contract term.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293959</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>