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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the termination of the workmen's service amounted to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether Section 2(oo)(bb) excluded such termination from the ambit of retrenchment so as to render Section 25(f) inapplicable.
Analysis: Section 2(oo) defines retrenchment widely, but expressly excludes termination resulting from non-renewal of a contract of employment on expiry of its term or termination under a stipulation contained in such contract. The record showed that the workmen were engaged on daily wages for a specific purpose, namely guarding stock stored in the open, and that their engagement was to continue only till the stock was disposed of or for a limited period. The Labour Court relied on the engagement order and the evidence to conclude that the appointments were for a specific purpose and specified period. On that basis, the termination after the stock was cleared and the period expired fell within the contractual exception in Section 2(oo)(bb), and the mandatory retrenchment requirements under Section 25(f) were not attracted.
Conclusion: The termination did not amount to retrenchment and was not invalid for want of compliance with Section 25(f); the workmen were not entitled to reinstatement or consequential relief.