<?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>2001 (5) TMI 985 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309959</link>
    <description>In industrial adjudication, an employer&#039;s right to adduce evidence to justify dismissal after a defective domestic enquiry is procedural and must be invoked at the proper stage. The SC affirmed that the management must reserve and seek that opportunity in its written statement or at the first available stage, so the workman has notice and the tribunal can avoid delay and repeated hearings. Applying the rule in Shambu Nath Goyal, a belated request made only after the preliminary issue on the validity of the enquiry has been decided is not entertainable. The employer&#039;s application was therefore rightly rejected as delayed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Sep 2023 13:13:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=727519" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (5) TMI 985 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309959</link>
      <description>In industrial adjudication, an employer&#039;s right to adduce evidence to justify dismissal after a defective domestic enquiry is procedural and must be invoked at the proper stage. The SC affirmed that the management must reserve and seek that opportunity in its written statement or at the first available stage, so the workman has notice and the tribunal can avoid delay and repeated hearings. Applying the rule in Shambu Nath Goyal, a belated request made only after the preliminary issue on the validity of the enquiry has been decided is not entertainable. The employer&#039;s application was therefore rightly rejected as delayed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309959</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>