Skip to content


Meenambigai Motor Service, Virudhunagar Vs. State of Madras and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 3 of 1955
Judge
Reported inAIR1957Mad298
ActsIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 25F
AppellantMeenambigai Motor Service, Virudhunagar
RespondentState of Madras and ors.
Appellant AdvocateT. Venkatadri, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateSpecial Govt. Pleader and ;K.V. Sankaran, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- - that the petitioner acted in good faith throughout and saw to it that these three workmen, respondents 2, 3 and 5 were given suitable employment by the kodaikana motor union to which the petitioner had sold the buses, did not divest these workmen of the statutory rights vested in them by section 25f. nor could the good faith on the part of the petitioner divest him of his liability to pay compensation......1 to 4 on 27th april 1954 were during the tendency of an industrial dispute of which the industrial tribunal had taken cognisance within the meaning of section 83 of the industrial disputes act read with' sections 20 and 17a of that act.2. what the industrial tribunal awarded was in enforcement of the statutory right vested in the retrenched workmen, respondents 2, 3 and 5, by section 25f of the industrial disputes act. there was no error in the exercise of the jurisdiction. the termination of the services of these respondents on 3rd april 1054 was retrenchment within the meaning of section 25f. that the petitioner acted in good faith throughout and saw to it that these three workmen, respondents 2, 3 and 5 were given suitable employment by the kodaikana motor union to which.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Rajagopalan, J.

1. The Tribunal had jurisdiction. Theapplications preferred by respondents 1 to 4 on 27th April 1954 were during the tendency of an Industrial dispute of which the Industrial Tribunal had taken cognisance within the meaning of Section 83 of the Industrial Disputes Act read with' Sections 20 and 17A of that Act.

2. What the Industrial Tribunal awarded was in enforcement of the statutory right vested in the retrenched workmen, respondents 2, 3 and 5, by Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. There was no error in the exercise of the jurisdiction. The termination of the services of these respondents on 3rd April 1054 was retrenchment within the meaning of Section 25F. That the petitioner acted in good faith throughout and saw to it that these three workmen, respondents 2, 3 and 5 were given suitable employment by the Kodaikana Motor Union to which the petitioner had sold the buses, did not divest these workmen of the statutory rights vested in them by Section 25F. Nor could the good faith on the part of the petitioner divest him of his liability to pay compensation.

3. The rule is discharged and the petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //