DELHI CLOTH & GENERAL MILLS LTD. versus SHAMBHU NATH MUKHERJEE & ORS.

DELHI CLOTH & GENERAL MILLS LTD. versus SHAMBHU NATH MUKHERJEE & ORS.

The striking off of the respondent’s name from the rolls amounted to termination of service, which is retrenchment under s. 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and such retrenchment is invalid without compliance with the mandatory provisions of s. 25F(a) and (b). No manifest error or jurisdictional flaw was found in the Labour Court’s award reinstating the workman with full back wages, and s. 10 of the Act does not offend Article 14 of the Constitution.

Parties
Appellant: Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd.; Respondent No. 1: Shambhu Nath Mukherjee
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 October 1977
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Certificate From Division Bench of Delhi High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Retrenchment, Industrial Dispute, Standing Orders, Article 14 of the Constitution, Section 2 a, Industrial Disputes Act
Labour Law Constitutional Law Retrenchment Industrial Dispute Standing Orders Article 14 of the Constitution Section 2 A, Industrial Disputes Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd.

Appellant

Shambhu Nath Mukherjee

Respondent No. 1

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Certificate From Division Bench of Delhi High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether termination by striking off a workman’s name from the rolls without compliance with s. 25F(a) and (b) amounts to retrenchment under s. 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
  2. 2 Whether s. 10 or s. 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
  3. 3 Whether the writ challenging the vires of s. 2A was sufficient absent factual pleadings regarding espousal by a union.

Ratio Decidendi

The striking off of the respondent’s name from the rolls amounted to termination of service, which is retrenchment under s. 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and such retrenchment is invalid without compliance with the mandatory provisions of s. 25F(a) and (b). No manifest error or jurisdictional flaw was found in the Labour Court’s award reinstating the workman with full back wages, and s. 10 of the Act does not offend Article 14 of the Constitution.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Award of the Labour Court reinstating the workman with full back wages affirmed.