https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189915 Non-compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ordinarily makes retrenchment ineffective and the normal relief is reinstatement with full back wages; departure from that rule is justified only by special circumstances such as closure, impossibility, or inequity. The Court also clarified that, after the 1964 amendment, Section 25B(2) is satisfied when a workman has actually worked for not less than 240 days in the preceding twelve months, even if he has not been in service for a full year. On that basis, the workmen were reinstated with full back wages. en-us Tue, 23 Sep 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Jan 2017 16:25:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189915 Non-compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ordinarily makes retrenchment ineffective and the normal relief is reinstatement with full back wages; departure from that rule is justified only by special circumstances such as closure, impossibility, or inequity. The Court also clarified that, after the 1964 amendment, Section 25B(2) is satisfied when a workman has actually worked for not less than 240 days in the preceding twelve months, even if he has not been in service for a full year. On that basis, the workmen were reinstated with full back wages. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 23 Sep 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189915