Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.22 seconds)Section 25F in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 25G in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Krishna District Co-Operative ... vs N.V. Purnachandra Rao & Ors on 3 August, 1987
In Krishna District Co-operative Marketing Society Limited, Vijayawada v. N.V. Purnachandra Rao and Ors., this Court has construed the provisions of Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Sections 40 and 41 of the Act and has held that if the employees are 'workmen' and the
management is an 'industry' as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act and the action taken by the management amounts to 'retrenchment' then the rights and liabilities of the parties are governed by the provisions of Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and the said rights and liabilities may be adjudicated upon and enforced in proceedings before the authorities under Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 41 of the Act. In that case proceedings had been initiated in the form of appeal filed under Section 41 of the Act before the authority and it was held that since the orders for termination of services of the employee amounted to retrenchment and had been passed without complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the order of the authority setting aside the said orders of termination could be affirmed in view of Sections 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. This Court further held that it is open to the authority under Section 41 of the Act to determine whether Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act were complied with or not and to set aside the orders of termination and to grant appropriate relief if it is found that there was non-compliance with Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. Applying the said decision to the facts of the present case it can be said that since the appellant was a workman and the respondent-Bank is an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act the action taken by the respondent-Bank in terminating the services of the appellant amounts to 'retrenchment' and since the appellant had worked continuously for more than 240 days such retrenchment could be done only in accordance with provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said provisions were admittedly not complied with because one month's wages in lieu of notice were not paid at the time of such retrenchment on January 2, 1971 and were paid subsequently on January 5, 1971. The termination of the services of the appellant cannot, therefore, be upheld as legal and valid".
Anoop Jaiswal vs Government Of India & Anr on 24 January, 1984
The Supreme Court, in Anoop Jaiswal's case, supra, held as follows.-
State Of Punjab & Anr vs Shri Sukh Raj Bahadur on 22 February, 1968
It is urged relying upon the observation in Sukh Raj Bahadur's case, supra, that it is only when there is a full scale departmental enquiry envisaged by Article 311(2) of the Constitution i.e., an Enquiry Officer is appointed, a chargesheet submitted, explanation called for and considered, any termination made thereafter will attract the operation of Article 311(2). It is significant that in the very same decision it is stated that the circumstances preceding or attendant on the order of termination of service have to be examined in each case, the motive behind it being immaterial.
Union Of India, And Anr. vs R.S. Dhaba, Income-Tax Officer, ... on 7 April, 1969
"Para 11.--On behalf of the Union of India reliance has been placed on State of Punjab and Anr. v. Sukh Raj Bahadur, ; Union of India and Ors. v. R.S. Dhaba, ; State of Bihar and Ors. v. Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra, ; R.S. Sial v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.,
: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Chandra
Trivedi,
and I.N. Saksena v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
. We have gone through these decisions.
State Of Bihar & Ors vs Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra on 14 September, 1970
"Para 11.--On behalf of the Union of India reliance has been placed on State of Punjab and Anr. v. Sukh Raj Bahadur, ; Union of India and Ors. v. R.S. Dhaba, ; State of Bihar and Ors. v. Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra, ; R.S. Sial v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.,
: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Chandra
Trivedi,
and I.N. Saksena v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
. We have gone through these decisions.
R. S. Sial vs The State Of U.P. & Ors on 25 March, 1974
"Para 11.--On behalf of the Union of India reliance has been placed on State of Punjab and Anr. v. Sukh Raj Bahadur, ; Union of India and Ors. v. R.S. Dhaba, ; State of Bihar and Ors. v. Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra, ; R.S. Sial v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.,
: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Chandra
Trivedi,
and I.N. Saksena v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
. We have gone through these decisions.
State Of U.P vs Ram Chandra Trivedi on 1 September, 1976
As pointed out by us in all these cases including the case of flam Chandra Trivedi, supra, the principle applied is the one enunciated by Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India,
which we have referred to earlier.