Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)Section 25H in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Central Bank Of India vs S.Satyam & Ors on 31 July, 1996
Section 25G provides for the procedure for
retrenchment of a workman. The respondents have
correctly submitted that the provisions of Sections
25G and 25H of the Act do not require that the
workman should have been in continuous
employment within the meaning of Section 25B
before he could said to have been retrenched. The
decision in Central Bank of India v. S. Satyam
(1996) 5 SCC 419 is clear authority on the issue.
We see no reason to take a contrary view.
Section 25G requires the employer to "ordinarily
retrench the workman who was the last person to be
employed in a particular category of workman unless
for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches
any other workman". This "last come first go", rule
predicates. 1) that the workman retrenched belongs
to a particular category; 2) that there was no
agreement to the contrary;3) that the employer had
not recorded any reasons for not following the
principle. These are all questions of fact in respect of
which evidence would have to be led, the onus to
prove the first requirement being on the workman
and the second and third requirements on the
employer. Necessarily a fair opportunity of leading
such evidence must be available to both parties.
This would in turn entail laying of a foundation for
the case in the pleadings. If the plea is not put
forward such an opportunity is denied, quite apart
from the principle that no amount of evidence can be
looked into unless such a plea is raised.
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Workmen Of Subong Tea Estate vs The Outgoing Management Of Subongtea ... on 2 December, 1963
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents in both the appeals has submitted that
the definition of retrenchment had undergone an
amendment in 1984, whereas both the terminations
in question had taken place prior thereto. In terms
of the unamended definition, daily wage employees
whose services were terminated were also
retrenched. Reliance has been placed on the
decisions in Central Bank of India Vs. S. Satyam
& Ors. (1996) 5 SCC 419 ; Workmen of Subong
Tea Estate Vs. The Outgoing Management of
Subong Tea Estate & Anr. (1964) 5 SCR 602;
Punjab Land Devl.
Section 17B in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Punjab Land Development And ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T. ... on 28 September, 2000
& Reclamation Corpn. Ltd.
Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (1990) 3
SCC 682, L.Robert D'Souza Vs. The Executive
Engineer, Southern Railway & Anr. (1982) 3
SCR 251 and S.M. Nilajkar & Ors. Vs. Telecom
District Manager, Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 27,
to contend that in the circumstances of the case the
finding of the Tribunal that the services of the
workmen had been illegally retrenched and that they
were entitled to reinstatement and backwages was
correct.