<?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>Termination dispute non-arbitrable, falls under statutory authority&#039;s jurisdiction.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83934</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court set aside the High Court&#039;s judgment and order appointing an arbitrator u/s 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It held that the dispute regarding non-payment of wages and the legality of the termination order was non-arbitrable as it fell under the jurisdiction of the statutory authorities under the Payment of Wages Act. The alleged violation of the non-disclosure obligation was an afterthought not raised in the show cause notice, inquiry report, or termination order, rendering it non-existent. Consequently, the respondent&#039;s petition u/s 11(6) was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2024 07:23:05 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2024 07:23:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=782502" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Termination dispute non-arbitrable, falls under statutory authority&#039;s jurisdiction.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83934</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court set aside the High Court&#039;s judgment and order appointing an arbitrator u/s 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It held that the dispute regarding non-payment of wages and the legality of the termination order was non-arbitrable as it fell under the jurisdiction of the statutory authorities under the Payment of Wages Act. The alleged violation of the non-disclosure obligation was an afterthought not raised in the show cause notice, inquiry report, or termination order, rendering it non-existent. Consequently, the respondent&#039;s petition u/s 11(6) was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2024 07:23:05 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83934</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>