9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of judgments and orders passed by Industrial Court 2. Applicability of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 3. Retrenchment of permanent and badli employees 4. Compliance with Industrial Disputes Act and Bombay Industrial Relations Act 5. Requirement of consent from BIFR under section 22 of SICA 6. Principles of natural justice in retrenchment process Analysis: 1. The judgment involved a group of petitions seeking to quash judgments and orders passed by the Industrial Court. The court noted that the matters were disposed of by a common order due to common questions of law and facts. 2. The case revolved around the applicability of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) in the context of retrenchment of employees following the amalgamation of two mills. The petitioners sought relief under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the retrenchment and sought reinstatement with full back wages and other reliefs. 3. The judgment detailed the background of the case, highlighting the retrenchment of permanent and badli employees following the amalgamation of the mills. Issues arose regarding the agreements between the Union and the mills, objections raised by workers, and the subsequent legal proceedings challenging the retrenchment. 4. The court addressed the compliance with the Industrial Disputes Act and the Bombay Industrial Relations Act in the retrenchment process. The petitioners argued that the retrenchment was contrary to these laws, emphasizing breaches of natural justice in the decision-making process. 5. The court examined the requirement of consent from the Board of Industrial Finance & Reconstruction (BIFR) under section 22 of SICA for initiating proceedings against a sick company. The respondents contended that the scheme sanctioned by the BIFR had been implemented, and the retrenched workers had been compensated as per the scheme. 6. In the final analysis, the court upheld the decisions of the BIFR and the Appellate Authority for Industrial Finance and Reconstruction, emphasizing the expertise of these bodies in matters under SICA. The court highlighted the satisfaction of creditors and workers with the sanctioned scheme and dismissed the petitions, ruling that there was no procedural irregularity justifying interference with the expert bodies' decisions. The court concluded by discharging the rule with no order as to costs.
|
