<?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 74 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305325</link>
    <description>Section 25E of the Industrial Disputes Act is construed strictly because it creates a disqualification to lay-off compensation. Where &quot;one establishment&quot; is not defined, the test is the ordinary industrial or business unity of the undertaking, assessed by ownership, management and control, finance, employment, functional integrality, common purpose and geographical proximity. Applying those indicia, a limestone quarry supplying the principal raw material exclusively to a cement factory, under common management and finance, was treated as part of the same establishment. The fact that the units fell under different statutory regimes did not prevent that conclusion. The workmen were therefore disqualified from lay-off compensation under section 25E(iii).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2022 15:01:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=697164" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (9) TMI 74 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305325</link>
      <description>Section 25E of the Industrial Disputes Act is construed strictly because it creates a disqualification to lay-off compensation. Where &quot;one establishment&quot; is not defined, the test is the ordinary industrial or business unity of the undertaking, assessed by ownership, management and control, finance, employment, functional integrality, common purpose and geographical proximity. Applying those indicia, a limestone quarry supplying the principal raw material exclusively to a cement factory, under common management and finance, was treated as part of the same establishment. The fact that the units fell under different statutory regimes did not prevent that conclusion. The workmen were therefore disqualified from lay-off compensation under section 25E(iii).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305325</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>