Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)Section 25FFF in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
P.S. Desikachari And Ors. vs The Proprietors Of Associated ... on 21 June, 1961
4. On behalf of the management it is contended that, having found all the other points in their favour, the tribunal went wrong in holding that this was a case of retrenchment, whereas it was a case of closing down of a session of the activities of the company, and, therefore, Section 25FFF applies rather than Section 25F. On the other hand, on behalf of the workmen, it is urged that this is not a case of closing down, that there cannot be a partial close down and that, therefore, it should be held to be a retrenchment and not as a closing down. Reliance is also placed in support of this contention on the notice found at page 23 of the typed papers to which I have already referred. Butt except for the fact that in the top of the notice reference is made to retrenched workers, throughout the notice at page 23 as well as at page 25 of the typed papers reference is clearly to a closing down alone. The mere fact that a reference is made to retrenchment of workers in one part of the notice, I am afraid, cannot be relied upon to urge that what the management contemplated was itself a retrenchment rather than a closing down. I am not satisfied that the decision of a Bench of this Court in Desikachari v. Associated Publishers, Madras (P.) Ltd. 1961 II L.L.J. 771 applies to the case. There, it was not a question of the closing down of an undertaking. It related to the question whether a particular worker had retired or had been retrenched. In dealing with that question, the Bench pointed out that in their letter the management had mentioned about retrenchment compensation, and if they wanted to contend that what had happened was retirement rather than retrenchment, they should have at least let in evidence to show that somebody else had been appointed in the place of the worker, whose claims were under consideration, and thus established that it was a case of retirement, Therefore, that decision cannot apply to the facts of this case.
Workmen Of The Indian Leaf Tobacco ... vs Management Of The Indian Leaf Tobacco ... on 27 September, 1968
The Supreme Court in its latest decision in Civil Appeal No. 556 of 1966, rendered on September 27, 1968, Workmen of Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co. Ltd. v. Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co. Ltd. 1970 (20) F.L.R. 269 : (1968) 37 F.J.R. 231 had held that the closure of eight depots by a company, even if it is held not to amount to a closure of the business of the company, cannot be interfered with by an Industrial Tribunal, if, in fact, that closure was genuine and real, and that the closure may be treated as stoppage of a part of the activity or business of the company.
Section 9A in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
1