https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197394 Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act was upheld as a valid restriction on the employer's right to carry on business because it regulated retrenchment in large industrial establishments in the public interest, advancing employment security, industrial peace, and workers' welfare. The power under Section 25-N(2) was held to be quasi-judicial, since it required enquiry into relevant facts, observance of natural justice, and a reasoned speaking order. The absence of an express appeal or revision did not make the provision arbitrary, as the order remained subject to judicial review under Article 226. The provision was also found to contain sufficient statutory guidance from its scheme, object, and relevant retrenchment factors. en-us Fri, 15 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Jan 2018 12:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197394 Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act was upheld as a valid restriction on the employer's right to carry on business because it regulated retrenchment in large industrial establishments in the public interest, advancing employment security, industrial peace, and workers' welfare. The power under Section 25-N(2) was held to be quasi-judicial, since it required enquiry into relevant facts, observance of natural justice, and a reasoned speaking order. The absence of an express appeal or revision did not make the provision arbitrary, as the order remained subject to judicial review under Article 226. The provision was also found to contain sufficient statutory guidance from its scheme, object, and relevant retrenchment factors. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 15 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197394