https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194857 Failure to serve the retrenchment application on the concerned workmen, and to file proof of such service as required by the retrenchment procedure, was treated as non-compliance with a substantive procedural safeguard and rendered the permission invalid. However, because the substantive grounds for retrenchment had otherwise been accepted and the dispute arose in the context of an approved settlement, reinstatement was held inappropriate. The workmen were instead granted monetary relief by way of retrenchment compensation and an additional payment, subject to deductions for sums already paid. en-us Wed, 04 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Oct 2017 16:42:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194857 Failure to serve the retrenchment application on the concerned workmen, and to file proof of such service as required by the retrenchment procedure, was treated as non-compliance with a substantive procedural safeguard and rendered the permission invalid. However, because the substantive grounds for retrenchment had otherwise been accepted and the dispute arose in the context of an approved settlement, reinstatement was held inappropriate. The workmen were instead granted monetary relief by way of retrenchment compensation and an additional payment, subject to deductions for sums already paid. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194857