Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.31 seconds)The Amending Act, 1897
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 25F in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
State Bank Of India vs Shri N. Sundara Money on 16 January, 1976
In Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (1990-II-LU-70), the Constitution Bench examined the so- called conflict between its two judgments, namely, Hari Prasad Shiv Shankar Shukla v. A.D. Divakar (supra) and State Bank of India v. N. Sundara Money's case (supra). After considering its various earlier judgments, the Supreme Court held that: (p. 93):
L. Robert D'Souza vs The Executive Engineer Southern ... on 16 February, 1982
The only thing which the employee is required to prove for invoking applicability of Section 25F is that he has worked under the employer for 240 days within a period of 12 months preceding the date of termination of service. He is not required to show that he was in regular service or that he was holding a post in substantive capacity or that he was a temporary employee. In whatever capacity the employee may be working, it is obligatory for the employer to comply with the condition precedent enumerated in Sub-section (2) of Section 25F. Question relating to applicability of Section 25F in the case of casual or seasonal workman should be treated as concluded in view of the Supreme Court decision in L. Robert D'Souza v. The Executive Engineer, Southern Railway (Supra). In that case Supreme Court Specifically rejected an argument that the provisions of Section 25F are not attracted in the cases of casual or daily rated employees. While repelling such a submission, the Supreme Court observed, (p. 343):
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Principal, Mayo College vs Labour Court on 21 August, 1987
I am clearly of the opinion that the law laid down by the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Mayo College's case (supra) is correct and there is no warrant or justification for taking a different view. I, therefore, hold that the finding recorded by the learned Judge, Labour Court that termination of the service of the workman amounts to retrenchment as defined in Section 2(oo) of 1947 Act, is correct and does not call for any interference by this Court.
The Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1996
Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd vs Shambhu Nath Mukherjee & Ors on 3 October, 1977
This wider literal interpretation of the definition of retrenchment was applied by the Supreme Court in its subsequent decision in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd v. Shambhu Nath Mukherjee (1918-l-LU~\\ Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala (1980-H-LLJ-72), Mohan Lal v. Bharat Electronics Ltd., (1981-11-LLJ-70), L. Robert D'Souza v. The Executive Engineer, Southern Railways (1982-I-LLJ-330), and a large number of other cases, After about 12 years of the judgment of Sundara Money's case some doubts were expressed about its correctness in view of the observations made by the Constitution Bench in Hari Prasad Shiv Shankar Shukla's case (supra). Therefore, the question was once again referred to a Constitution Bench.