https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291765 Termination of workmen was treated as retrenchment because the undertaking had not undergone a real and complete closure; the employer continued executing existing contracts, so the business remained operative for pending commitments. In that setting, section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act applied, and its mandatory conditions precedent had not been satisfied. The purported reliance on closure under section 25FFF therefore failed, and the Labour Court's award was left undisturbed. en-us Wed, 09 Dec 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Nov 2020 10:23:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291765 Termination of workmen was treated as retrenchment because the undertaking had not undergone a real and complete closure; the employer continued executing existing contracts, so the business remained operative for pending commitments. In that setting, section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act applied, and its mandatory conditions precedent had not been satisfied. The purported reliance on closure under section 25FFF therefore failed, and the Labour Court's award was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 09 Dec 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291765