SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(Mad) 161

RAMANUJAM
K. Gurumurthy, Authorised Representative of Certain Workmen, Etc. , Etc – Appellant
Versus
Simpson and Company, Madras and Others, Etc. , Etc – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: For

Judgment :-

Ramanujam, J.

As all these writ appeals and the writ petitions raise a common question, they are dealt with together. However, it is unnecessary to set out the facts in all the cases as the facts are substantially the same and it is sufficient to refer to the facts in the first case, viz., Writ Appeal No. 44 of 1977.

2. Messrs. Simpson & Co., Ltd., Madras filed an application on 19-5-1976 under S.25M(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 as amended, hereinafter referred to as the Act to the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madras seeking permission to continue the lay-off of 139 of 432 workmen employed in the establishment with effect from 5-3-1976, for the reason set out in Item 21 of the Annexure to the application. The reasons set out in the said Annexure were (1) non-availability of essential raw materials to run the operations in the Carriage department and the Light Engineering section, (2) acute power shortage, (3) no possibility of procuring orders due to non-availability of raw materials and (4) the company lost its market for the products manufactured in those departments necessitating the closure of the sales department and there was not possibility of procuring



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top