Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.82 seconds)
Isha Steel Treatment, Bombay vs Association Of Engineering Workers, ... on 25 February, 1987 cites

The Management Of Indian Cable Co., ... vs Its Workmen on 5 March, 1962

In Indian Cable Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, [1962] 1 L.L.J. 409 this Court has held that the fact that the balance sheet was prepared incorpo- rating the trading results of all the branches or that the employees of the various branches were treated alike for the purpose of provident fund, gratuity, bonus and for condi- tions of service in general, could not lead to the conclu- sion that all the branches should be treated as one unit for purposes of section 25-G of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 71 - Full Document

S.G. Chemical And Dyes Trading ... vs S.G. Chemicals And Dyes Trading Limited ... on 3 April, 1986

The decision in S.G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Employees' Union v. S.G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Limited and Another, [1986] 2 S.C.C. 624 is not of much assistance to the work- men. The management in that case was running its business in pharmaceuticals at three places. The Pharmaceutical Division was at Worli, the Laboratory and Dyes Division was at Trom- bay and the Marketing and Sales Division was at Churchgate. In 1984 the company which was managing the said three divi- sions of business was sold out. As the buyers proposed to handle the future sales of the Company through their own distribution channels, they found that the services of the staff working at the Churchgate office were no longer re- quired. Therefore, the management closed down the office at Churchgate. The question was whether there was functional integrality between the office at the Churchgate and the factory at Trombay. This Court on a 423 consideration of the material before it in that case, held that the functions of the Churchgate division and the Trom- bay factory were neither separate nor independent but were so integrally connected as to constitute the Churchgate and the Trombay factory into one establishment, because the Churchgate division used to purchase the raw material re- quired by the Trombay factory for producing or processing the goods. it used to market and sell the goods so manufac- tured or processed by that factory and it also used to disburse the salary and other employment benefits and main- tain accounts etc. of the workmen. These were considered to be integral parts of the manufacturing activities of the factory at Trombay, because the factory could never have functioned independently without the Churchgate division being there. It is not the case of the workmen in the present case that the II Unit could not continue to function after the closure of the I Unit. As already mentioned, the II Unit is continuing to function as usual even now notwith- standing the stoppage of the activities at the I Unit. The question of application of section 25-G of the Act arises only when the services of the workmen are retrenched.
Supreme Court of India Cites 49 - Cited by 135 - D P Madon - Full Document

Santosh Gupta vs State Bank Of Patiala on 29 April, 1980

In Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala, [1980] 3 S.C.R. 884 it is laid down that if the termination of service of a workman in a given case falls either under section 25-FF or under section 25-FFF of the Act it would not be a termina- tion falling under section 25-F of the Act. This Court has observed in that case that after the enactment of section 25-FF and section 25-FFF retrenchment included every kind of termination of service except those not expressly included in section 25-F or not expressly provided for by other provisions of the Act such as sections 25-FF and 25-FFF. Hence if the case is one of genuine closure then the ques- tion of applying section 25-G of the Act which is applicable to a case of retrenchment would not arise.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 155 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Management Of Hindustan Steel Ltd vs The Workmen & Ors on 12 January, 1973

In Management of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. The Workmen & Others, [1973] 3 S.C.R. 303 this Court has held that the word 'undertaking' used in section 25-FFF seems to have been used in its ordinary sense connoting thereby any work, enterprise, project or business undertak- ing. It is not intended to cover the entire industry or business of he employer. Even the closure or stoppage of a part of the business or activities of the employer would seem in law to be covered by the said provision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 70 - A Alagiriswami - Full Document
1   2 Next