Workman Who Consents For Contractual Engagement Can’t Turn Around & Seek Benefit U/S 25F Of Industrial Disputes Act
Case: X v/s INDEXT/C INDUSTRIAL EXTENSION COTTAGE & 1 other(s)
Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt
Case No.: C/SCA/12240/2008
Court Observation: “In the facts of the present case, it is admitted position that the petitioner herself has signed the consent letter at Exh.21, which is admittedly for the contractual appointment for a period of one year only and when there is specific agreement between the parties for contractual appointment and when there is specific condition provided in such and the petitioner is appointed for the limited period, then the petitioner cannot claim for any benefit by contending that the respondent establishment of public authority has committed breach of Section 25 (F) or any other provisions of I.D. Act,”
The precise question to be decided, therefore, is whether on a proper construction of the definition of “retrenchment” in Section 2(oo) of the Act, it means termination by the employer of the service of a workman as surplus labour for any reason whatsoever, or it means termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, and those expressly excluded by the definition. In other words, the question to be decided is whether the word “retrenchment” in the definition has to be understood in its narrow, natural and contextual meaning or in its wider literal meaning.
Previous Posts
Deep Appreciation Of Facts Not Required At Stage Of Framing Charges: J&K&L High Court
Tripura High Court Grants Judicial Separation To Old Couple On Humanitarian Grounds
Orissa High Court Upholds ‘Life Term’ Of Murder Convict 18 Yrs After Enlarging Him On Bail
Keywords
Consents For Contractual Engagement, Industrial Disputes Act
