<?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 (11) TMI 488 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312480</link>
    <description>The SC allowed the appeal by the State Electricity Board, dismissing the employees&#039; appeal. It held that the Board was not liable to pay retrenchment compensation, as the purchase price covered employee dues. The employees did not meet the conditions under Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for compensation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2024 18:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=744359" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (11) TMI 488 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312480</link>
      <description>The SC allowed the appeal by the State Electricity Board, dismissing the employees&#039; appeal. It held that the Board was not liable to pay retrenchment compensation, as the purchase price covered employee dues. The employees did not meet the conditions under Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for compensation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312480</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>