Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.17 seconds)Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Gurdaspur Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ... on 15 January, 1998
In the case of The Faridabad Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II), Faridabad and Anr. 1999(3) RSJ 378, when it was established that the work on which the workman was appointed was not of temporary nature and his appointment was being extended from time to time and even when the workman was relieved of his duties, the work was available and the post was in existence, in such a situation, it was held that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act cannot be excluded by merely saying that the appointment is made for "89 days on daily wages".
Haryana State Cooperative Supply And ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ... on 21 November, 2000
(c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health;]
A bare perusal of the said definition shows that the termination of a workman "for any reason whatsoever" would constitute retrenchment except in cases excepted in the abovesaid section itself. The petitioner-department has failed to prove if the case of the petitioner-workmen falls in any of the excepted categories. The termination of the services due to transfer of regular incumbents does not fall in any of the exceptions mentioned above. Therefore, this case falls within the term termination of the services "for any reason whatsoever". It would, thus, be retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act, referred to above. As said above, the workman had completed 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding the date of his termination and is thus, protected by provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Admittedly, there is no compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act ibid. The petitioner-department cannot rub off an employee/workman by bye-passing the provisions of Act. The Labour Court, after having gone through all the aspects, has rightly concluded that the termination of services of the workman is illegal.
1