Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether termination of the services of all workmen on a real and bona fide closure of business, or on a transfer of the undertaking to another employer, amounts to retrenchment within section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 so as to attract compensation under section 25F.
Analysis: The expression "retrenchment" was read in its ordinary and accepted sense as discharge of surplus labour or staff in a continuing business. The definition in section 2(oo), though wide in language, was held not to extend to the termination of all workmen when the business itself has genuinely closed down or ceased to exist. The scheme of the Act was treated as one concerned with an existing or continuing industry, and not a dead one. Section 25FF was viewed as an amendment designed to supersede certain judicial decisions dealing with transfer of ownership or management, not as a parliamentary exposition enlarging section 25F to cover closure cases.
Conclusion: Termination on bona fide closure or on transfer of the undertaking in the circumstances considered did not constitute retrenchment under section 2(oo), and no compensation was payable under section 25F.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the Industrial Disputes Act, retrenchment refers to the discharge of surplus workmen in a continuing undertaking, and does not include termination of all workmen upon the bona fide closure of the business or a comparable cessation of the undertaking.