<?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>2021 (3) TMI 1257 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297750</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Labour Court&#039;s decision of reinstating the Employee but modified the relief package. The Court granted continuity of service until superannuation, excluded backwages, and directed the Employer to settle terminal benefits within twelve weeks. The Employee&#039;s entitlement to pensionary benefits was recognized. The Court stressed the significance of evidence in proving negligence and emphasized a balanced approach in determining relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2021 08:23:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=656295" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (3) TMI 1257 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297750</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Labour Court&#039;s decision of reinstating the Employee but modified the relief package. The Court granted continuity of service until superannuation, excluded backwages, and directed the Employer to settle terminal benefits within twelve weeks. The Employee&#039;s entitlement to pensionary benefits was recognized. The Court stressed the significance of evidence in proving negligence and emphasized a balanced approach in determining relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297750</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>