Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.35 seconds)
Management Of Jor Bagh Distributors ... vs Workmen As Represented By Mercantile ... on 1 May, 1995 cites

The Management Of Indian Compressors ... vs D.D. Gupta And Ors. on 27 April, 1976

11. Presiding Officer of the Labour Court on the pleading of the parties framed various issues. As regards its jurisdiction it was held that since retrenchment was of 57 workmen only, therefore, appropriate Government could make reference to the Labour Court by virtue of Section 10 of the Act. It was held that the respondent Management wanted to re-organise its business by reducing the number of routes from 52 to 30, as a result of which 57 workmen had become surplus, who were to be retrenched w.e.f. December 8, 1982 and the fact that the Management had reduced its routes which action of Management had not been challenged on behalf of the workmen, either in the application or during evidence. Therefore, it was not at all necessary to go into other aspects of the case. It was held that Section 25-F of the Act had sufficiently and duly been complied with and thus, retrenchment was held to be legal. While recording this finding it was held that though retrenchment compensation was not received by workmen on December 8, 1982, but in view of the decision in The Management of Indian Compressors Makers Corporation, New Delhi v. D.D. Gupta and Ors. 1977 Lab, I.C. 694, retrenchment cannot be said to be illegal on the ground that retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F of the Act was not tendered simultaneously with the retrenchment notice, since according to the findings, Management had taken requisite steps in getting the bank draft prepared and sending the retrenchment compensation along with notices through registered post at the last known address of the workmen.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Indian Tourism Development ... vs Delhi Administration And Ors. on 29 January, 1982

A full Bench of this Court in India Tourism Development Corporation, New Delhi v. Administration, Delhi and Ors., 1982 Lab I.C. 1309, while construing the provisions of Section 10(4) of the Act held that the jurisdiction of Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal is limited to the points referred and it cannot go into those questions, not referred to it, which otherwise are required to be adjudicated upon on reference under the Act. The Court held.
Delhi High Court Cites 75 - Cited by 55 - Full Document

Parry & Co. Ltd vs P.C. Pal & Ors on 27 November, 1968

In Parry and Co. Ltd. v. P. C. Pal, judge of Second Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta and Ors. (1970-II-LLJ-429) the ratio of the decision in D. Macropollo and Co. (P) Ltd. v. D. Macropollo and Co.(P) Ltd. Employees' Union and Ors. , was followed on this proposition that in case scheme to re-organise had been adopted by an employer for reasons of economy and convenience and it had been introduced in all the areas of its business, the fact that its implementation would lead to the discharge of some of the employees would have no material bearing on the question as to whether the re-organisation has been adopted by it bonafide or not. The Industrial Tribunal considering the issue of retrenchment should not attach any importance to the consequence of re-organisation. Resultant discharge and retrenchment would have to be considered as inevitable though unfortunate consequence of such a scheme which the employer, acting bonafide, was entitled to adopt. The Court held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 109 - J M Shelat - Full Document
1   2 Next