TaxTMI Login
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%
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court could direct the Government of India to continue the workmen in service in the absence of any master-servant relationship, and whether the earlier brief order relied on by the High Court could operate as a binding precedent.
Analysis: The direction issued by the High Court proceeded on an earlier brief order without examining the factual foundation for binding liability against the Government of India. The Court held that the earlier order did not disclose the facts or reasons for the direction and therefore could not be treated as a binding precedent. In the present case, the Government of India had no established employment relationship with the workmen of the State Trading Corporation, so no direction could be issued against it to absorb them. The ancillary contention regarding Section 25O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not accepted, as the High Court had not granted any relief against the State Trading Corporation and the establishment strength was shown to be only 28 workmen, below the statutory threshold. The Court also noted that compensation had been offered under Section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Conclusion: The direction against the Government of India was unsustainable and the High Court was in error in ordering it to employ the workmen.
TaxTMI 
