Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.50 seconds)

Punjab Land Development ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour ... on 4 May, 1990

14. The decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Stale Bank of India v. N. Sundar Mani (supra), the three-Judge Bench interpreting Section 25F read with Section 2(oo) of the I. D. Act has been approved by the Constitution Bench in the case of Punjab Land Development & Reclamation Corporation Limited v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigadh, 1990 (3) SCC 682. This clause (bb) has been inserted by amending the Act of 1984. It purports to exclude from the ambit of the definition of 'retrenchment' - (i) termination of service of a workman as a result of non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or (ii) termination of contract of employment in terms of stipulation contained in the contract of employment in that behalf. The first part relates to termination of service of a workman as a result of non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry. The second part refers to such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein. The expression 'such contract' used in second part refers to contract of employment between the employer and the workman providing the mode and the manner of termination of service. Such termination of service has now specifically been excluded from the definition of 'retrenchment' of this sub-clause. The cases contemplated under both the parts, therefore, will not be 'retrenchment'. Conversely, a case not falling within either of the parts of this sub-clause will be 'retrenchment' falling within the main part of the definition. In other words, where in fact there is no non-renewal of the contract or there is no stipulation in the contract in that behalf, the termination of service will constitute 'retrenchment'. Termination of service of a casual workman on daily wages will not fall within the exception contained in sub-clause (bb) of the Act because contract of employment is referable to the contract other than engagement of casual workers on daily wages. Non-renewal of the contract employment presupposes an existing contract of employment which is not renewed. The position, however, would be different when such a contract is in reality a camouflage for a more sustaining nature of arrangement but a mode of daily wager is obtained so as to avoid the rigors of the Act. This clause does not contemplate to cover a contract such as of a daily wager and is rather intended to cover more general clause of contract where a regular contract of employment is entered into and the termination of service is an act of non-renewal of contract.
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 177 - K N Saikia - Full Document

Delhi Transport Corporation vs D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress on 4 September, 1990

Likewise, in the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited v. Brojonath Ganguly, 1986 (2) LLJ 171 and in case of Delhi Transport Corporation Limited v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, 1991 (1) LLJ 395 has observed that Regulation 9(b) of the Corporation which provided for termination of employment by giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof vest absolute, unbridled and arbitrary powers in the employer to terminate the service and as such was violative of the Constitutional mandate contained in Art. 14 of the Constitution. The effect of this dicta or observation of the Apex Court is that any stipulation in a contract of employment fixing the term of employment or providing for termination of service by giving a notice for certain specified period of time or payment of wages in lieu thereof will be void, arbitrary and discriminatory and also being opposed to the public policy under Section 23 of the Contract Act. Similarly, the termination of employment by non-renewal of the term of contract will not have the protection of sub-clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 205 - Cited by 906 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Khalil Ahmed Bashir Ahmed vs Tufelhussein Samasbhai Sarangpurwala on 13 November, 1987

26. Therefore, considering the above settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court as well as various High Courts, according to my opinion, the Labour Court has not committed any jurisdiction error or procedural error apparent on the face of the record and Labour Court and Industrial Court has functioned within the limits of its authority and the findings given by both the Courts is based upon the evidence and it is not perverse. Further, there is no manifest error apparent on the face of the proceedings and there is no clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law and both the Courts have applied its mind and there is no contradictory conclusion in respect to finding of fact. Accordingly, when there is no error apparent on the face of the record committed by both the Courts below, I dismiss this writ petition. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief granted earlier stands vacated with no order as to costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 125 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1