<?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>1996 (2) TMI 599 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310163</link>
    <description>An employer retains the right to adduce evidence before an Industrial Tribunal to justify a dismissal even where the domestic enquiry is absent, defective, perverse, or contrary to natural justice. Section 11A does not take away that right, and the proviso does not bar fresh evidence when a timely request is made before the proceedings close. The refusal to allow evidence was unjustified because the request was made in time, so the employer had to be permitted to lead evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Oct 2023 11:01:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=728633" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (2) TMI 599 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310163</link>
      <description>An employer retains the right to adduce evidence before an Industrial Tribunal to justify a dismissal even where the domestic enquiry is absent, defective, perverse, or contrary to natural justice. Section 11A does not take away that right, and the proviso does not bar fresh evidence when a timely request is made before the proceedings close. The refusal to allow evidence was unjustified because the request was made in time, so the employer had to be permitted to lead evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310163</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>