Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.09 seconds)Section 25O in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 25FFF in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Industrial Perfumes Ltd. vs Industrial Perfumes Workers Union on 23 April, 1998
In the light of the above, we are clearly of the view that the interpretation of the learned Single Judge in the case of Industrial Perfume Workers Union (supra) with regard to "closure" is the correct interpretation, and accordingly we answer the above issue.
Kalinga Tubes Ltd vs Their Workmen on 3 May, 1968
7. Thereafter Mr. Rele relied upon various judgments of the Supreme Court in support of his contention. Mr. Rele relied upon the judgment in the case of Kalinga Tubes Ltd v. Their Workmen 1968 (34) FJR 393. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under:
Management Of Hindustan Steel Ltd vs The Workmen & Ors on 12 January, 1973
8. Mr. Rele, the learned Senior Counsel also brought to out notice the judgment in the case of Management of Hindustan Steel Limited v. The Workmen and Ors. 1973 LAB IC 461. It was contended that even when there was no definition of closure in the Industrial Disputes Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the word undertaking used in Section 25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act is not intended to cover the entire industry or business of the employer which is evident from the following observation:
Workmen Of The Straw Board ... vs M/S. Straw Board Manufacturing Company ... on 21 March, 1974
In the Straw Board Manufacturing Company's case the Court held :
S.G. Chemical And Dyes Trading ... vs S.G. Chemicals And Dyes Trading Limited ... on 3 April, 1986
It is thus clear that the word "undertaking" in the expression "an undertaking of an industrial establishment" in Section 25-O means an Page 0831 undertaking in its ordinary meaning and sense as defined by this Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Limited. If an undertaking in its ordinary meaning and sense is a part of an industrial establishment so that both taken together constitute one establishment, Section 25-O would apply to the closure of the undertaking provided the condition laid down in Section 25K is fulfilled.
J. K. Synthetics vs Rajasthan Trade Union Kendra & Ors on 12 December, 2000
11. Referring to the judgment in the case of J.K. Synthetics v. Rajasthan Trade Union Kendra and Ors. 2001 I CLR 1058, Mr. Rele, the learned Counsel has pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has observed that it must be remembered that at the time the disputes were referred to the Industrial Tribunal the term 'closure' had not been incorporated in the Industrial Disputes Act. It may be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case specifically held that a closure can also be a part of the plant."
D.R. Venkatachalam & Ors vs Dy. Transport Commissioner & Others on 10 December, 1976
12. Mr. Rele vehemently contended that the definition of "closure" should be read as it is, i.e. closure would mean the permanent closing down of a "place" of employment or part thereof. For this purpose he relied upon the general principles that govern interpretation of statutes. Mr. Rele, in support of his contention referred to the judgment in the case of D.R. Venkatachalam v. Dy. Transport Commissioners and Ors. , wherein the relevant paragraph 27 reads as under: