TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds Labour Court's Decision on Dismissal Case</h1> <h3>McKenzies Ltd., Madras Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madras and Ors.</h3> The Tribunal upheld the legality of an award by the Labour Court regarding the dismissal of eight workers from an engineering firm's Madras branch. While ... - Issues:Legality of an award by the Labour Court regarding the dismissal of eight workers from an engineering firm's branch in Madras, compliance with S. 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, determination of closure vs. retrenchment under S. 25-FFF and S. 25-F.Analysis:The judgment concerns the legality of an award by the Labour Court regarding the dismissal of eight workers from an engineering firm's Madras branch. The management sought to close the branch due to incurred losses. The Tribunal found that while the desire to close the branch was genuine, the retrenchment of six workers was unjustified as they could have been absorbed in existing works. The Tribunal's decision was also based on the employer's failure to comply with the terms of S. 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which sets conditions for retrenchment.The petitioner argued that the case was not about retrenchment under S. 25-F but about closure falling within S. 25-FFF. The distinction between closure and retrenchment was discussed, emphasizing that closure entails the termination of all work, while retrenchment involves the discharge of surplus staff. In this case, although the business was still operational to complete existing contracts, the termination of employment constituted retrenchment under Sec. 25-F due to non-compliance with its terms.The judgment highlights that for a closure to be recognized, there should be no remaining work after the termination of employment. The business in question was operational to fulfill existing contracts, indicating retrenchment rather than closure. As non-compliance with Sec. 25-F was established, the Tribunal's award was deemed legal. The petition challenging the award was dismissed, emphasizing the distinction between closure and retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
