<?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 (11) TMI 115 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300939</link>
    <description>In certiorari under Article 226, a tribunal&#039;s findings can be interfered with where they rest on conjecture, wrong assumptions of material fact, or evidence wholly unwarranted by the record; the adverse findings on the employer&#039;s bona fides were therefore unsustainable. Industrial adjudication cannot review the wisdom, profitability, or convenience of a bona fide managerial reorganisation, and its role is limited to legality, not business policy. Retrenchment was also not invalid for non-compliance with Rule 77 where wages in lieu of notice were paid and notice to the authorities substantially satisfied the rule&#039;s object. The retrenchment challenge failed on that ground.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2022 13:21:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=671977" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (11) TMI 115 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300939</link>
      <description>In certiorari under Article 226, a tribunal&#039;s findings can be interfered with where they rest on conjecture, wrong assumptions of material fact, or evidence wholly unwarranted by the record; the adverse findings on the employer&#039;s bona fides were therefore unsustainable. Industrial adjudication cannot review the wisdom, profitability, or convenience of a bona fide managerial reorganisation, and its role is limited to legality, not business policy. Retrenchment was also not invalid for non-compliance with Rule 77 where wages in lieu of notice were paid and notice to the authorities substantially satisfied the rule&#039;s object. The retrenchment challenge failed on that ground.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300939</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>