Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.35 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Sh. Massod Ahmed Khan & Ors. vs Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf)/Hamdard ... on 13 April, 2012
It is correct that job of the claimant was transferable to
any other division or department. After holding that management
had not closed down Transport / Railway Departments, it is not
necessary to decide whether he is entitled to be transferred to some
other department, in case of closing of his own department. But for
the sake of settling the dust, it is held that in view of Massod Ahmed
Khan & Ors. Vs. Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf)/ Hamdard (Wakf)
Laboratories & Ors (supra), he is not entitled to be absorbed in any
other department if his department was closed down by the
management.
Section 11 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
J. K. Synthetics vs Rajasthan Trade Union Kendra & Ors on 12 December, 2000
Regarding rights of the employees of the closed unit, the
Hon'ble Apex Court concluded in J.K. Synthetic Vs. Rajasthan
Trade Union Kendra & Ors. (supra) that such employees are entitled
only to closure compensation as per Section 25F of the Act. It
clarified that the employees get only compensation under that Section
with the help of Section 25FFF, but both sections are not
comparable because in the case of violation of Section 25F, the
employee can get reinstatement etc. but if the case falls under Section
25FFF and retrenchment compensation is not paid, he cannot be
granted reinstatement etc. He is entitled to get only compensation.
The Indian Hume Pipe Co., Ltd vs Their Workmen on 5 May, 1959
15. In the case in hand, the motive alleged by the claimant
behind the closure of departments is his membership of union. The
management wanted to teach such persons a lesson and that is why
his service was terminated. Such a plea is thwarted by Indian
Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen (supra). In that case, the
Apex Court had clearly held that the Tribunal cannot go into the
question as to the motive of the appellant in closing down its factory
at Barakar and to enquire whether it was bona fide or mala fide with
some oblique purpose, namely, to punish the workman for the union
activities in fighting the appellant.
Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan vs Union Of India & Others on 26 May, 2000
22. Even if, service of a workman has been terminated
illegally, that would not automatically lead to reinstatement with
100% back wages. In Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan Vs. Union of
India & Ors. 2000 IV AD (Delhi) 709, Hon'ble Delhi High Court
dealt with the question of reinstatement and back wages and
observed in paragraphs 27 and 28 as under :
"27. We find from the decision of the
Supreme Court rendered in the 1970s and
1980s that reinstatement with back wages was
the norm in cases where the termination of the
services of the workman was held inoperative.
Municipal Council, Sujanpur vs Surinder Kumar on 5 May, 2006
In Municipal Council, Sujanpur Vs. Surinder Kumar
ID No.6871/16. 40/46
2006 LLR 662, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the relief of
reinstatement is not automatic but is in the discretion of the court. In
paragraph 16, it was observed as under :
"Apart from the aforementioned error of law,
in our considered opinion, the Labour Court
and consequently the High Court completely
misdirected themselves insofar as they failed
to take into consideration that relief to be
granted in terms of section 11A of the said Act
being discretionary in nature, a Labour Court
was required to consider the facts of each
case therefor. Only because relief by way of
reinstatement with full back wages would be
lawful, it would not mean that the same would
be granted automatically".
Vinod Kumar And Ors. vs Salwan Public School And Anr. on 17 January, 2014
In Vinod Kumar & others vs Salwan Public School &
others WP(c)5820/2011 dt.17.11.2014 Hon,ble Justice V.
Kameshwar Rao has held as under: