https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108922 The court dismissed the petitions, affirming the validity of the clause "for a period of one year from the closing date" in the agreement. It held that the disinvestment process adequately protected employees' interests, as per Article 13.1 of the agreement and legal precedents like Balco Employees Union case. The court ruled that employees' consent or hearing was not required for economic policy decisions, and the disinvestment did not violate constitutional protections under Articles 14, 16, and 21. The decision emphasized the binding nature of the Balco case and upheld the justifiability of the disinvestment policy. en-us Fri, 28 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:35:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108922 The court dismissed the petitions, affirming the validity of the clause "for a period of one year from the closing date" in the agreement. It held that the disinvestment process adequately protected employees' interests, as per Article 13.1 of the agreement and legal precedents like Balco Employees Union case. The court ruled that employees' consent or hearing was not required for economic policy decisions, and the disinvestment did not violate constitutional protections under Articles 14, 16, and 21. The decision emphasized the binding nature of the Balco case and upheld the justifiability of the disinvestment policy. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 28 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108922