HARIPRASAD SHIVSHANKAR SHUKLA versus A. D. DIVIKAR

Termination of service of all workmen on a bona fide closure of industry or on a genuine change of ownership/management does not amount to retrenchment within s. 2(00) or attract compensation under s. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. ‘Retrenchment’ covers only discharge of surplus labour in an ongoing business, not extinguishment of all employment due to closure or transfer.

Parties: Appellant: Hariprasad Shivshankar Shukla; Respondent: A. D. Divikar
Jurisdiction: India
Judgment Date: 27 November 1956
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeals / Final Appeal to Supreme Court From Bombay High Court
Outcome: Appeals allowed. Decisions of the Bombay High Court set aside.
Legal Topics: Retrenchment, Closure of Industry, Termination of Service, Industrial Disputes

Labour Law Retrenchment Closure of Industry Termination of Service Industrial Disputes

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2

Parties

Hariprasad Shivshankar Shukla

Appellant

A. D. Divikar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeals / Final Appeal to Supreme Court From Bombay High Court

Legal Issues

1 Whether termination of services of all workmen on bona fide closure of industry or on change of ownership/managment amounts to 'retrenchment' under s. 2(00) or s. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed. Decisions of the Bombay High Court set aside.

Orders

Appellants not liable to pay any compensation under s. 25F of the Act to their erstwhile workmen.
In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs throughout.