Closure of a distinct construction undertaking excludes retrenchment compensation; conditional notice challenge failed for lack of specific pleading.

A distinct construction undertaking closed on completion of the work falls within Section 25FFF(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, so compensation under Section 25F(b) is excluded; the retrenchment was therefore not open to challenge on that footing. A separate objection that the retrenchment notice was conditional could not be entertained on general pleadings, because such a challenge required specific pleading to give the employer fair notice of the case to meet. The SC held that the tribunal erred in allowing that objection and treated the retrenchment as proper and justified.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the retrenchment arose from closure of a distinct undertaking so that Section 25FFF(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 excluded compensation under Section 25F(b); (ii) whether the alleged defect in the retrenchment notice, said to be conditional, could be sustained on the basis of the general pleadings.

Issue (i): whether the retrenchment arose from closure of a distinct undertaking so that Section 25FFF(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 excluded compensation under Section 25F(b).

Analysis: The Ranchi Housing Project was a separate and distinct venture with its own beginning and end, and the facts found showed that it was closed on completion of the work. Section 25FFF(2) applies to the closure of an undertaking set up for construction work and, on its plain language, excludes compensation under Section 25F(b) when the closure is on completion within the statutory period. The statutory scheme treats such closure differently from retrenchment in a continuing undertaking.

Conclusion: The closure fell within Section 25FFF(2), and Section 25F(b) was inapplicable.

Issue (ii): whether the alleged defect in the retrenchment notice, said to be conditional, could be sustained on the basis of the general pleadings.

Analysis: The challenge to the notice required a specific pleading so that the employer could meet the precise case. A broad allegation that the retrenchment grounds were false and cooked up did not fairly raise a distinct objection that the notice was invalid because it was conditional. The Tribunal therefore erred in allowing that objection to be argued as if it had been specifically pleaded.

Conclusion: The objection to the notice was not properly open and could not invalidate the retrenchment.

Final Conclusion: The retrenchment was upheld as proper and justified because the case was governed by the closure provision and the notice-based objection failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a distinct construction undertaking is closed on completion of the work, Section 25FFF(2) excludes compensation under Section 25F(b), and a challenge to retrenchment notice must be specifically pleaded to be entertained.

---