https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311064 The Supreme Court held that a belated objection to the appellant's status as an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act could not be raised in these appeals, because the appellant had consistently proceeded on the basis that the Act applied, including by seeking approval under Section 33(2)(b); the point was left open for other proceedings. On relief, the Court found that serious proved misconduct, loss of confidence, and the long lapse of time made reinstatement inappropriate. As the employee did not plead or prove that he was not gainfully employed, back wages were also refused. Compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages was therefore substituted. en-us Fri, 24 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Dec 2023 21:03:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311064 The Supreme Court held that a belated objection to the appellant's status as an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act could not be raised in these appeals, because the appellant had consistently proceeded on the basis that the Act applied, including by seeking approval under Section 33(2)(b); the point was left open for other proceedings. On relief, the Court found that serious proved misconduct, loss of confidence, and the long lapse of time made reinstatement inappropriate. As the employee did not plead or prove that he was not gainfully employed, back wages were also refused. Compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages was therefore substituted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 24 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311064