<?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>1959 (9) TMI 72 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303966</link>
    <description>SC commentary on industrial discipline and reinstatement under the Industrial Disputes Act explains that breach of section 33, or the absence of a prior domestic enquiry, does not by itself end the merits of a dismissal dispute; the tribunal may still examine the misconduct and relief on the evidence. It also states that participation in an illegal pen-down strike does not automatically bar reinstatement. However, denial of reinstatement may be justified where the employer proves individual responsibility for violent, trespass-related, or subversive conduct. On the facts discussed, reinstatement was maintained only for the employee whose record on responsibility was confused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2022 14:16:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=689156" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (9) TMI 72 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303966</link>
      <description>SC commentary on industrial discipline and reinstatement under the Industrial Disputes Act explains that breach of section 33, or the absence of a prior domestic enquiry, does not by itself end the merits of a dismissal dispute; the tribunal may still examine the misconduct and relief on the evidence. It also states that participation in an illegal pen-down strike does not automatically bar reinstatement. However, denial of reinstatement may be justified where the employer proves individual responsibility for violent, trespass-related, or subversive conduct. On the facts discussed, reinstatement was maintained only for the employee whose record on responsibility was confused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303966</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>