Back
MILIND N. JADHAV
General Motors Employees Union – Appellant
Versus
General Motors India Private Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
1. Both these Writ Petitions are disposed of by the following common Judgment.
2. Writ Petition No. 7992 of 2023 is filed by the Petitioner-General Motors Employees Union (for short ‘the Union’ hereinafter) to challenge the order dated 28.04.2023 passed below Exhibit “U-25” in Reference (IT) No. 15 of 2021. This Application was filed during the pendency of Reference before the Industrial Tribunal.
3. General Motors India Private Limited is nomenclatured as ‘first party’ before the Tribunal in the Reference whereas the Union is nomenclatured as ‘second party’. They shall be referred to as “Company” and “Union” in this judgment for convenience. It was contended by the Union in the Application filed below Exhibit “U-25” that the Company has filed statutory Application for closing down of the Company under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the said Act’) on 20.11.2020, intending to close down the Company with effect from 20.04.2021. It is further stated that the Government after hearing both parties by order dated 18.01.2021,
The provisions of Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act are directory, allowing closure based on accumulated losses, and potential unemployment cannot prevent a company from closing a loss-maki....
The provisions of Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act are directory, allowing for closure applications to be valid even if adjudicated after one year from the refusal of closure permission.
The court established that a closure permitted under the Industrial Disputes Act remains valid unless successfully challenged within a reasonable timeframe.
The court upheld the legality of the closure of the industrial establishment, affirming that the majority acceptance of a severance package by workers binds all, including dissenting individuals.
The deeming fiction under Sec. 25-O(3) of the ID Act is not triggered if the closure applications are incomplete and deficiencies are communicated by the State Government within 60 days. The petition....
The validity of closure negates grounds for reinstatement unless framed properly within statutory provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act.
The management's factory closure without requisite permission violated Sections 25(O) and 25(R) of the Industrial Disputes Act, establishing grounds for criminal charges.
Closure of business does not constitute retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, reaffirming that termination due to closure is outside statutory definitions of retrenchment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the consequences of an illegal closure are statutorily prescribed, and the workmen are entitled to all the benefits under any law for the time....
The refusal to permit closure of a business under Section 25(o) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was arbitrary and not sustainable, as the employer is not required to submit restructuring plans.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
