1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Supreme Court orders compensation for unlawful retrenchment under Industrial Disputes Act</h1> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in a case concerning retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court found that the retrenchment permission ... - Issues involved: Retrenchment of workmen u/s 25-N of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Challenge to retrenchment permission granted by authority; Compliance with Section 25-N and Rule 76-A regarding service of notices to workmen.Retrenchment Challenge: The appellants challenged their retrenchment following permission granted by the authority u/s 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, which was upheld by the High Court, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court u/s Article 136 of the Constitution.Allegations and Settlement: Allegations were made that union leaders colluded with management in a settlement leading to retrenchment of workmen. The High Court rejected contentions of collusion and non-service of personal notice to workmen, emphasizing that representatives were duly heard by the authority.Compliance with Notice Requirements: The main issue was whether workmen were served with copies of the application as mandated by Section 25-N and Rule 76-A. Management claimed to have sent notices to workmen with proof of service, but the Supreme Court found discrepancies in the provided proof and the application itself, indicating non-compliance.Judgment and Compensation: The Supreme Court found the retrenchment permission not in accordance with the law due to lack of proper notice. Instead of reinstatement, the Court ordered a compensation of Rs. 10,000 to each of the retrenched workmen, in addition to retrenchment compensation as per Section 25-F(b) of the Act, to be paid within two months from the judgment date.Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the compensation order was made for the retrenched workmen due to non-compliance with notice requirements, emphasizing the importance of following statutory procedures in cases of retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
