https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310628 A cease-and-desist direction under the Maharashtra unfair labour practices law requires a proved finding of an unfair labour practice; an anticipatory restraint based only on apprehension is not supported, and no coercion or attempted enforcement was shown. The court also held that repeated higher incentive payments did not by themselves create an implied term in the earlier settlement, because implication requires necessity for efficacy and clear contractual intention. As the earlier agreement contained no express right beyond 91% and the later payments arose under a subsequent settlement, no implied entitlement was established. The impugned order was quashed. en-us Fri, 18 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Nov 2023 13:19:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310628 A cease-and-desist direction under the Maharashtra unfair labour practices law requires a proved finding of an unfair labour practice; an anticipatory restraint based only on apprehension is not supported, and no coercion or attempted enforcement was shown. The court also held that repeated higher incentive payments did not by themselves create an implied term in the earlier settlement, because implication requires necessity for efficacy and clear contractual intention. As the earlier agreement contained no express right beyond 91% and the later payments arose under a subsequent settlement, no implied entitlement was established. The impugned order was quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310628