Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)Gamon India Limited vs Niranjan Dass on 5 December, 1983
Learned Counsel has further submitted that the Award
dated 6.4.1994 was challenged by the petitioner before the High
Court in S.B.C.W.P. No.3140/1991 wherein the High Court vacated
the stay on 7.8.1995. After vacation of the stay, the Committee
took a decision to terminate the services of the petitioner treating
him as a daily wager and issued a notice on 28.11.1995 which has
been challenged by way of the reference. The learned labour Court
has thus, reached to the conclusion that the petitioner has not
complied with the earlier Award and the respondent-workman,
therefore, was entitled to receive the notice pay in terms of
Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. Learned labour Court has also
noticed that a sum of Rs. 27,985/- was paid to the workman by
the petitioner by cheque vide letter dated 1.4.1999 during the
pendency of the dispute before the labour Court thus, the amount
(Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 09:23:04 PM)
(3 of 6) [CW-7359/2005]
was not paid alongwith the notice or on completion thereof and,
therefore, the labour Court has followed the law laid down by the
Apex Court reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court 500-
Gammon India Limited Vs. Niranjan Dass and judgment
reported in 1994(1) WLC 523- Radha Krishan Meena Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. .
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
R.S.R.T.C. vs Judge, Labour Court on 3 February, 1987
This Court in 1984 RLR 981- R.S.R.T.C. V. Judge,
Labour Court after making detailed discussions of the provisions
of Section 25-F(a) and (b) as well as Section 33(2)(b) of the Act
of 1947 held that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947
are mandatory and if the two conditions enumerated in Section
25-F(a) and (d) are not fulfilled on or before or at the time of
retrenchment, the retrenchment will have to be treated as non-
est, void, ab-initio and nullity and the workman would be entitled
to reinstatement in service with continuity in service.
Radha Kishan Meena S/O Santram Meena vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 April, 2019
"3. It is not disputed that the pre-requisite for a valid
retrenchment as laid down in Sec. 25f has not been
complied with and therefore the retrenchment bringing
about termination of service is ab initio void. Viewed from
this angle, the award of the Industrial Tribunal was correct
and unassailable and the learned Single Judge was in
error in interfering with the same. Undoubtedly, the
Division Bench of the High Court has set aside the order
of the learned Single Judge and restored the award for
reasons of its own. However, for the reasons herein
indicated, the decision of the Division Bench in Letters
Patent Appeal No. 25 of 1970 is upheld and confirmed and
this appeal must therefore fail and accordingly it is
dismissed."
1