Back
J. NISHA BANU, P. DHANABAL
General Secretary, Kempf Employees Union Through R. Selvaraj – Appellant
Versus
Management of Kempf India Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
J.NISHA BANU, J.
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters patent to set aside the order of the learned Judge made in W.P.No.9293 of 2020 dated 28.11.2023.
Challenging the order made by this Court in W.P.No.9293 of 2020 dated 28.11.2023, wherein, the learned Single Judge has confirmed the Award passed by the Labour Court in holding that the demand made by KEMPF Employees Union/appellant herein to reopen the factory and to reinstate the workers as 'not justified', under Section 10(1)(c) & Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'I.D. Act'), the aggrieved petitioner therein has preferred this appeal.
2. The material facts which need to be summarized for the purpose of the present appeal are thus:-
2.1. KEMPF India Limited, having its registered office at Coimbatore, is into the manufacture of Propeller shafts and Universal Cross Join Kits used in Automobile Industry. It is averred in the petition that due to frequent dissatisfaction displayed by its workers in the form of strikes and accumulating financial losses, the respondent Management sought permission under Section 25-O of the I.D. Act to close down the manufact
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 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 validity of closure negates grounds for reinstatement unless framed properly within statutory provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act.
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....
Closure of an undertaking – An employer seeking to close his business must show compelling and overriding circumstances – Order accepting or rejecting application for closure is an administrative ord....
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....
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 court affirmed that employee status as 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act hinges on actual job functions, not merely titles, impacting claims for closure compensation.
The court upheld that the closure of the employer's business complied with statutory provisions, affirming the award of closure compensation to workers under the Industrial Disputes Act.
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
