<?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>2007 (1) TMI 660 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464176</link>
    <description>For retrenchment compensation under Section 25F(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, average pay must be computed strictly under Section 2(aaa) by reference to the three complete calendar months immediately preceding the relevant date. A monthly rated workman&#039;s wages cannot be divided by 26 to apply a 26-working-days formula, because that method is drawn from different statutory language in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and does not govern retrenchment compensation. The SC held the Labour Court&#039;s computation method legally unsustainable, set aside the Labour Court and High Court orders, and upheld the termination as valid for compliance with the compensation requirement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2025 17:25:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=857379" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (1) TMI 660 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464176</link>
      <description>For retrenchment compensation under Section 25F(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, average pay must be computed strictly under Section 2(aaa) by reference to the three complete calendar months immediately preceding the relevant date. A monthly rated workman&#039;s wages cannot be divided by 26 to apply a 26-working-days formula, because that method is drawn from different statutory language in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and does not govern retrenchment compensation. The SC held the Labour Court&#039;s computation method legally unsustainable, set aside the Labour Court and High Court orders, and upheld the termination as valid for compliance with the compensation requirement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464176</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>