Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.65 seconds)Section 9A in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 25 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 25FFF in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Hariprasad Shivshankar Shukla vs A.D. Divikar (With Connected Appeal) on 27 November, 1956
This contention need not detain us because first in
Hindustan Steel Ltd. case, then
259
in Santosh Gupta's case (Supra) and lastly in Mohan Lal v.
Bharat Electronics Ltd.,(1) it was in terms held that the
decision in Sundera Money's case was not at all inconsistent
with the decision of the Constitution Bench in Hariprasad
Shukla's case and not only required no reconsideration but
the decision in Sundera Money's case was approved in the
aforementioned three cases.
Mohan Lal vs Management Of M/S Bharat Electronics ... on 21 April, 1981
This contention need not detain us because first in
Hindustan Steel Ltd. case, then
259
in Santosh Gupta's case (Supra) and lastly in Mohan Lal v.
Bharat Electronics Ltd.,(1) it was in terms held that the
decision in Sundera Money's case was not at all inconsistent
with the decision of the Constitution Bench in Hariprasad
Shukla's case and not only required no reconsideration but
the decision in Sundera Money's case was approved in the
aforementioned three cases.
Surendra Kumar Verma Etc vs The Central Government Industrial ... on 23 September, 1980
Undoubtedly, Mr. Francis pointed out that in Surendra
Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi & Anr.,(1) Pathak, J.
in his concurring judgment has stated that his concurrence
with the majority view propounded by Reddy, J. should not be
taken to imply his agreement with the interpretation of s.
2(oo) rendered in Santosh Gupta's case. It may, however, be
mentioned that the majority in that case has affirmed the
earlier decision.
Workmen Of Sur Iron And Steel Co. (P) Ltd. vs Sur Iron And Steel Co. (P) Ltd. And Anr. on 3 February, 1969
It was obligatory upon the employer, who wants to
retrench the workmen to give notice as contemplated by
clause (a) of s. 25. When a workman is retrenched it cannot
be said that change in his conditions of service is
effected. The conditions of service are set out in Fourth
Schedule. No item in Fourth Schedule covers the case of
retrenchment. In fact, retrenchment is specifically covered
by Item 10 of the Third Schedule. Now, if retrenchment which
connotes termination of service, cannot constitute change in
conditions of service in respect of any item mentioned in
Fourth Schedule, S. 9A would not be attracted. In order to
attract s. 9A the employer must be desirous of effecting a
change in conditions of service in respect of any matter
specified in Fourth Schedule. If the change proposed does
not cover any matter in Fourth Schedule s. 9A is not
attracted and no notice is necessary. See Workmen of Sur
Iron & Steel Co. (P) Ltd. v. Sur Iron & Steel Company (P)
Ltd., Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. v. Workmen and Assam
Match Co. Ltd. v. Bijoy Lal Sen. Thus if s. 9A is not
attracted the question of seeking exemption from it in the
case falling under
264
the proviso would hardly arise. Therefore, neither s 9A nor
the proviso is attracted in this case. The basic fallacy in
the submission is that notice of change contemplated by s.
9A and notice for a valid retrenchment under s. 25F are two
different aspects of notice, one having no co-relation with
the other. It is, therefore, futile to urge that even if
termination of the service of the petitioner constitutes
retrenchment it would nevertheless be valid because the
notice contemplated by s. 25F would be dispensed with in
view of the provision contained in s. 9a, proviso (b). That
apart, it is an indisputable position that none of the other
pre-conditions to a valid retrenchment have been complied
with in this case because the very letter of termination of
service shows that services were deemed to have been
terminated form a back date which clearly indicates no
notice being given, no compensation being paid and no notice
being given to the prescribed authority. Therefore,
termination of service, being retrenchment, for failure of
comply with s. 25F, would be viod ab initio.