Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 58 (1.81 seconds)Section 25F in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946
Section 25G in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Executive Engineer, Roads And Building ... vs Rameshkumar K. Bhatt on 17 August, 1999
Now, the view taken in Ramesh Gehlot's case is also required to be considered because in that case there were no allegations about the misuse of power by the employer or vitiated the termination order by colourable exercise of power or arbitrary and/or mala fide action. Therefore, none of the authorities are of any help to the petitioner. According to my opinion, the Labour Court as well as Industrial Tribunal have rightly considered two aspects viz., that at the time of termination of the respondent-workman, juniors have been retained in the same category and that subsequent to the termination of the respondent-workman, new employee on similar terms had been appointed by petitioner-Bank. Further, the Industrial Tribunal in paragraph No. 14 of its order has elaborately observed that Dharmistaben remained in service after the termination of the respondent, and Punitaben also was retained in service after the termination of the respondent, who was junior to the respondent, though the work was of continuous and permanent nature. So, the mala fide misuse of power and arbitrariness and colourable exercise of powers are proved.
Sur Enamel And Stampingworks (P) Ltd vs Their Workmen on 7 May, 1963
In Sur Enamel & Stamping Works (P) Limited v. Their Workmen, 1964 (3) SCR 616 : referred to Section 25B as it then stood read with Section 2(eee) which defined continuous service, this Court; at page 1916 of AIR has held as under :-
Purshottambhai R. Kachhadia vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 5 November, 1999
In case of Purshottambhai R. Kachhadiya (supra) which was a case of a daily wager appointed for fixed period and given break, post on which he worked while working on a work-charge employee. In that case,
it was the only contention raised by the petitioner that said termination was violative of Section 25F of the I. D. Act but no submissions were made in respect to the fact that the employer has misused the power and termination is vitiated with mala fide. No such contention was raised before this Court and after considering the case of M. Venugopalan & Ramesh Gehlot, this Court has held that irrespective of length of service, termination would not amount to retrenchment if there is a provision under the said contract for termination of employment. The learned Sr. Advocate has thus submitted that if the appointment has been made on periodical basis and a stipulation has been provided and by afflux of time if the service has come to an end, that covers the exception clause (bb), and therefore, it does not amount to 'retrenchment'.