9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Retrenchment of workmen u/s 25-N of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Challenge to retrenchment permission granted by authority; Compliance with Section 25-N and Rule 76-A regarding service of notices to workmen.
Retrenchment Challenge: The appellants challenged their retrenchment following permission granted by the authority u/s 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, which was upheld by the High Court, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court u/s Article 136 of the Constitution. Allegations and Settlement: Allegations were made that union leaders colluded with management in a settlement leading to retrenchment of workmen. The High Court rejected contentions of collusion and non-service of personal notice to workmen, emphasizing that representatives were duly heard by the authority. Compliance with Notice Requirements: The main issue was whether workmen were served with copies of the application as mandated by Section 25-N and Rule 76-A. Management claimed to have sent notices to workmen with proof of service, but the Supreme Court found discrepancies in the provided proof and the application itself, indicating non-compliance. Judgment and Compensation: The Supreme Court found the retrenchment permission not in accordance with the law due to lack of proper notice. Instead of reinstatement, the Court ordered a compensation of Rs. 10,000 to each of the retrenched workmen, in addition to retrenchment compensation as per Section 25-F(b) of the Act, to be paid within two months from the judgment date. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the compensation order was made for the retrenched workmen due to non-compliance with notice requirements, emphasizing the importance of following statutory procedures in cases of retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act.
|
