<?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>1959 (11) TMI 76 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459624</link>
    <description>Certiorari under Article 226 was held unavailable where the tribunal had ceased to exist and the relevant record was no longer within the custody or control of any authority amenable to writ jurisdiction, so the award and appellate order could not be quashed. Applying a broad, purposive construction of &quot;industry&quot;, &quot;industrial dispute&quot; and &quot;workman&quot; under the Industrial Disputes Act, employees engaged for manual work in connection with the employer&#039;s business were treated as workmen even though they worked at officers&#039; residences. Their wage dispute was therefore an industrial dispute, the adjudicator and tribunal had jurisdiction, and the impugned order was not void.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2024 11:05:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=783837" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (11) TMI 76 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459624</link>
      <description>Certiorari under Article 226 was held unavailable where the tribunal had ceased to exist and the relevant record was no longer within the custody or control of any authority amenable to writ jurisdiction, so the award and appellate order could not be quashed. Applying a broad, purposive construction of &quot;industry&quot;, &quot;industrial dispute&quot; and &quot;workman&quot; under the Industrial Disputes Act, employees engaged for manual work in connection with the employer&#039;s business were treated as workmen even though they worked at officers&#039; residences. Their wage dispute was therefore an industrial dispute, the adjudicator and tribunal had jurisdiction, and the impugned order was not void.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459624</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>