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>Supreme Court Reinstates Management's Decision: Termination of Contractual Watchmen Not Considered Retrenchment.</h1> <h3>Haryana State F.C.C.W. Store Ltd. and Ors. Versus Ram Niwas and Ors.</h3> The SC overturned the HC's judgment, reinstating the Labour Court's decision in favor of the management. The SC held that the termination of the ... - Issues:1. Whether the termination of service of the respondents constitutes 'retrenchment' under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947Rs.2. Whether Section 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act is applicable in this caseRs.Analysis:1. The case involved the termination of service of two respondents who were engaged as watchmen/chowkidars on a contract basis to watch over grain stock stored in an open area. The engagement was terminated after the stock was cleared without complying with Section 25(f) of the ID Act. The Labour Court initially held that the termination did not amount to retrenchment as the workmen were appointed for a specific purpose and period. The Labour Court's decision was challenged by the workmen in writ petitions before the High Court.2. The High Court set aside the Labour Court's decision and ordered reinstatement of the workmen with full benefits, mainly due to the lack of evidence of a contract of service between the management and the workmen for a specified period and work. The High Court relied on the absence of documentation regarding the appointment terms to rule in favor of the workmen. The High Court's judgment was then appealed in the Supreme Court.3. The Supreme Court analyzed the definition of 'retrenchment' under Section 2(oo) of the ID Act, which includes termination of service for any reason by the employer, with exceptions listed in the section. The Court cited previous judgments to explain the exceptions, including termination due to non-renewal of a contract of employment with a stipulation for termination. The Court emphasized that if a termination falls under any exception, it would not be considered retrenchment under the Act.4. In this case, the Supreme Court found that the engagement and termination of the workmen were in accordance with a contract of service for a specific purpose and period. The Court noted that the purpose for their engagement had ended, and the period specified in the contract had expired, leading to their disengagement. As there was evidence of a contract of service with specific terms, the Court concluded that the termination did not amount to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Act.5. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the Labour Court's decision and set aside the High Court's judgment. The Court restored the Labour Court's Award, ruling in favor of the management. The appeals were allowed, and the judgments of the High Court were overturned, with no order for costs.6. The Supreme Court's decision clarified that in cases where termination is in accordance with a contract of service for a specific purpose and period, it does not constitute retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court's interpretation of Section 2(oo)(bb) and the exceptions to the definition of retrenchment played a crucial role in determining the outcome of the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
