Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA, J
K.Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Labour Welfare and Skill Development (A2) Department – Respondent
ORDER :
R.N.Manjula, J.
The Writ Petition in W.P.No.6019 of 2023 has been filed challenging the Government Order issued by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.171, Labour Welfare and Skill Development (A2) Department dated 28.12.2022, through which, permission was given by the Government to close down the second respondent's Chennai Plant of Ford India Private Limited with effect from 31.01.2023 and quash the same.
2. The rest of the Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Kanchipuram made in I.A.Nos.1 to 1 of 2024 dated 26.06.2024 in the industrial dispute filed by the workmen and quash the same.
3. Heard Mr.S.Kumaraswamy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mrs.M.Jayanthi, learned Additional Government Pleader for R1 and Mr.S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel for R2 in all the Writ Petitions and perused the materials available on record.
4. The case of the petitioners are as follows:
The petitioners who were working under the second respondent Company have alleged that they have been illegally retrenched by the second respondent and the Government has iss
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 court established that a closure permitted under the Industrial Disputes Act remains valid unless successfully challenged within a reasonable timeframe.
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....
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 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....
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 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.
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
