Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.27 seconds)Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Punjab Land Development ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour ... on 4 May, 1990
In case of Punjab Land Development v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, (1990-II-LLJ-70) (SC). Thier Lordships , were, considering a bunch of writ petitions in which the management having lost in High Court had gone in appeal before the Supreme Court against the order of retrenchment of a workman who had been reinstated in the service by the Labour Court on finding that there was no proper compliance of Section 25F of the Act. In all these cases, thier Lordships took the view that the reinstatement of the workman was quite proper and correct.
Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. vs Shambhu Nath Mukherjee And Ors. on 20 February, 1970
7. Termination of employment on the ground of absence from duty for a specific period, as per the Certified Standing Orders in this case, would be retrenchment in terms of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The law in that respect is now well settled in view of catena of decisions . The case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Shambu Nath Mukherji and Ors., (1978-I-LLJ-1) (SC) laid down,that striking off name of a workman from the rolls by the management is a termination of service, and is covered under the term "retrenchment" within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In that case, employment of the workman had been terminated on the ground that he was absent from duty for eight days, and thus his employment was terminated in terms of the Standing Orders. On facts, their Lordships were of the view that the period of eight days of absence as required under the Standing Orders was not complete because there was intervening holiday. That apart, their Lordships further observed that even in the absence of any expression of opinion as to the completion of eight days, the striking of the name of the worker from the rolls on the ground of absence for a specific period, provided under StandingOrders, amounts to retrenchment.
Section 25 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
D.K. Yadav vs J.M.A. Industries Ltd on 7 May, 1993
In D.K. Yadav's case (supra), thier Lordships of the Supreme Court reinstated the workman with 50% backwages by observing that the workman was to blame himself for the impugned action. In that case also the termination of employment was as per the Standing Orders which provided termination if a workman absents himself from duty for eight days.
Pepsu Transport Co. Private Ltd. vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 17 May, 1967
In support of that my attention was invited to the case of Pepsu Transport Co. Private Ltd. v. State of Punjab and Ors.. AIR 1968 Punjab and Haryana 90. In that case this Court observed that mere calling upon the worker for collecting dues from the office is not sufficient tender, and was not proper compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
1