https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109310 Retrenchment disputes involving closed sugar units were treated as unsuitable for writ adjudication where the validity of notices, compensation, and statutory preconditions depended on contested facts; the employees were left to pursue industrial remedies. The closed units and running units were treated as separate establishments, so employees had no enforceable right to transfer or absorption in the Corporation's running units, and prior executive proposals did not create promissory estoppel. However, employees appointed before 1-10-1986 remained entitled to consideration for absorption in Government service under the 1991 retrenchment absorption rules, subject to eligibility conditions and acceptance of retrenchment compensation. en-us Fri, 12 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Apr 2012 17:56:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109310 Retrenchment disputes involving closed sugar units were treated as unsuitable for writ adjudication where the validity of notices, compensation, and statutory preconditions depended on contested facts; the employees were left to pursue industrial remedies. The closed units and running units were treated as separate establishments, so employees had no enforceable right to transfer or absorption in the Corporation's running units, and prior executive proposals did not create promissory estoppel. However, employees appointed before 1-10-1986 remained entitled to consideration for absorption in Government service under the 1991 retrenchment absorption rules, subject to eligibility conditions and acceptance of retrenchment compensation. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 12 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109310