Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
State 0F Bombay & Others vs The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha & Others on 29 January, 1960
This is an event that took place subsequent to the notice dated 22 November 1966, and, therefore that even would not retrospectively invalidate the notice dated 22 November 1966. Therefore, In form, I am not Issuing a writ quashing the notice dated 22 November 1966, but, at the same time, I declare that the purported retrenchment of the petitioner is not valid and the petitioner must be deemed to have continued in service without his services having been terminated pursuant to the notice dated 22 November 1966. Whoever might have been responsible for this default or negligence In the office of the respondents, certainly it has caused heavy loss to the public exchequer In the form of the salary which the respondents have to pay to the petitioner for the period from 23 December 1966 till fresh action, if found necessary, is taken in accordance with law, and the consequential enhanced compensation they may have to pay. It is all the stranger still because by a communication dated 19 July 1960, the Divisional Superintendent, Madras Division, Personnel Branch, Madras-3, had invited the attention of all the senior subordinates to the decision of the Supreme Court In State of Bombay and Ors. v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and Ors. 1980--I L.L.J. 251 (vide supra) holding that the payment of retrenchment compensation is a condition precedent to the valid retrenchment, and requested that the condition prescribed by Section 25F of the Act be strictly adhered to in every case of retrenchment.
1