<?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>1979 (9) TMI 209 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299197</link>
    <description>Employees of erstwhile contract carriage operators were held not to have an automatic or vested right of absorption in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation under Clause 20(3) of the 1976 acquisition scheme. Absorption depended on statutory conditions being satisfied, including workman status, exclusive employment in connection with the acquired property, prescribed ratio, screening, equation of posts, seniority, and willingness to join. The saving clause preserved only acts done or action taken under the Ordinance, not a mere expectation of future absorption. The later Act, given retrospective effect from the notified date, validly substituted the proviso to Section 19(3) and altered the absorption ratio.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2021 16:02:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=663068" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (9) TMI 209 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299197</link>
      <description>Employees of erstwhile contract carriage operators were held not to have an automatic or vested right of absorption in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation under Clause 20(3) of the 1976 acquisition scheme. Absorption depended on statutory conditions being satisfied, including workman status, exclusive employment in connection with the acquired property, prescribed ratio, screening, equation of posts, seniority, and willingness to join. The saving clause preserved only acts done or action taken under the Ordinance, not a mere expectation of future absorption. The later Act, given retrospective effect from the notified date, validly substituted the proviso to Section 19(3) and altered the absorption ratio.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299197</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>