https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197394 The Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, rejecting challenges based on Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It clarified that the right to retrench workmen is not integral to the right to carry on business but a peripheral right. The restrictions imposed by Section 25-N were deemed reasonable under Article 19(6), emphasizing the need for prior permission for retrenchment to prevent hardship to workmen. The Court highlighted the quasi-judicial nature of decision-making under the section. The decisions declaring Section 25-N unconstitutional by Madras and Rajasthan High Courts were not upheld. 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 The Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, rejecting challenges based on Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It clarified that the right to retrench workmen is not integral to the right to carry on business but a peripheral right. The restrictions imposed by Section 25-N were deemed reasonable under Article 19(6), emphasizing the need for prior permission for retrenchment to prevent hardship to workmen. The Court highlighted the quasi-judicial nature of decision-making under the section. The decisions declaring Section 25-N unconstitutional by Madras and Rajasthan High Courts were not upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 15 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197394