TMI Blog1959 (12) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter of this petition. The dispute which was referred for adjudication by the Labour Court and the legality in the award which is in controversy in this petition, is whether the dismissal of eight workers of the petitioners' establishment was justified and the relief to which they were entitled. 2. The petitioners were an engineering firm with branches all over India. They had a branch a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken any new contracts. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was error both in the approach as well as in the conclusion of the Tribunal as regards its finding that the six workers could have been absorbed in the works which they were admittedly having in the Madras State. I consider it however unnecessary to deal with this matter because the finding of the Tribunal is al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... doubt, if it was a case of closure S. 25-F would not apply, and this has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Barsi Light Rly. Co. Ltd. v. K. N. Joglekar, 1957 1 Lab LJ 243 : AIR 1957 SC 121. But the question still remains as to whether in the case of the petitioner establishment it is a case of closure or only a retrenchment falling within Sec. 25-F. 5. It is common ground that the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f all workmen have been terminated by the employer on the business or undertaking being taken over by another employer in circumstances like those of the railway 'company. In my judgment this passage can only mean in order that one can speak of a closure, it should be complete in the sense that there is no work remaining to be done after the termination of the employment of the workman. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
