whether the case
of the workmen is covered u/s 2 (oo)(bb) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
Onus on parties
4. Relief ... Section 2(oo) was misused or vitiated by its mala fide
exercise, the employer would not be entitled to invoke Section
2(oo)(bb
respondent is covered under Section 2(oo) of the ID Act and
exception of Section 2(oo)(bb) is not applicable. It is further submitted ... award. Section 2(oo) deals
with the definition of the retrenchment. It reads as under:-
"2(oo) "retrenchment" means the termination
appointment of
the petitioner was contractual within the meaning of Section 2 (oo)(bb) of the
Industrial Disputes Act.
2. It was the claim ... employment for a
specific period within the meaning of Section 2 (oo)(bb) (supra) and was not a
case of retrenchment or dismissal
Section
2(oo) of the Act, whereas, the dispute was covered under the Exception
of Section 2(oo) i.e. Section 2(oo)(bb ... whether it was a case under Section
2(oo) of the Act or whether Section 2(oo)(bb) would have
any application. The petitioner
Marketing Board Vs. Subhash Chand (2006)
2 SCC 794, in all of which though Section 2(oo)(bb) was invoked but in the
facts ... Section
2(oo) was misused or vitiated by its mala fide exercise, the employer would
not be entitled to invoke Section 2(oo)(bb
envisaged under Section 2 (oo) of the I.D. Act
in the present case. Retrenchment is defined under Section 2
(oo ... 2(oo)(b). By the Amending Act
49 of 1984, two additional exceptions were introduced to the
definition of retrenchment by inserting 2(oo) (bb
present case falls under the exception carved
out under Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act which states that
termination of employee made on account ... respondent that petitioner's case is
covered by Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act, is not acceptable. It
is the contention
petitioner workman being contractual within the meaning of
Section 2 (oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is the plea of the petitioner
workman ... Chand (2006) 2 SCC
794 where also seasonal appointment on contract basis was held to be falling
under Section 2(oo)(bb
would not be applicable. According to him, the
provision of Section 2(oo)(bb) shall be applicable. Further, he would state
that the respondent ... petitioner. The respondent's engagement being continuous, provision of
Section 2(oo) (bb) has no application. He would state that the petitioner
was required
termination of service of the petitioner is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the same did not tantamount ... petitioner falls within the ambit of exception clause provided under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
6. I have heard Shri
