https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416536 Closure of the Regional Accounts Office pursuant to binding settlements did not require a separate Section 9A notice because the proviso applied, and the material did not show functional integrality or interdependence to attract Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The closure was therefore not treated as retrenchment-based illegality or an unfair labour practice. The registered Union was also competent to maintain the complaint before the Industrial Court, since the dispute concerned alleged illegal closure affecting its members and the settlements did not bar such a challenge. The complaint was thus maintainable under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. en-us Fri, 29 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Jan 2022 08:54:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416536 Closure of the Regional Accounts Office pursuant to binding settlements did not require a separate Section 9A notice because the proviso applied, and the material did not show functional integrality or interdependence to attract Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The closure was therefore not treated as retrenchment-based illegality or an unfair labour practice. The registered Union was also competent to maintain the complaint before the Industrial Court, since the dispute concerned alleged illegal closure affecting its members and the settlements did not bar such a challenge. The complaint was thus maintainable under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 29 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416536