<?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>1983 (11) TMI 344 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460593</link>
    <description>Retrenchment dues tendered with the termination notice satisfied the statutory condition precedent for compliance with the retrenchment-payment requirement, because the workmen continued in service until service of the notice despite an earlier stated effective date; the finding of breach on that ground was set aside. By contrast, common supervision, consolidated accounts and employee transfers showed that two units formed one industrial establishment, so the last come first go rule applied across both units and junior employees had to be retained. As reinstatement was impracticable after closure, relief was confined to back wages for the specified period in lieu of reinstatement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2025 16:21:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=795305" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (11) TMI 344 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460593</link>
      <description>Retrenchment dues tendered with the termination notice satisfied the statutory condition precedent for compliance with the retrenchment-payment requirement, because the workmen continued in service until service of the notice despite an earlier stated effective date; the finding of breach on that ground was set aside. By contrast, common supervision, consolidated accounts and employee transfers showed that two units formed one industrial establishment, so the last come first go rule applied across both units and junior employees had to be retained. As reinstatement was impracticable after closure, relief was confined to back wages for the specified period in lieu of reinstatement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460593</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>