Personnel Section at Head Office have been advised to settle your dues, and you may write to them in the matter.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16th January, 1980 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, in Letters Patent Appeal No.
Should it be possible for us to offer you a job at any of our works sites at a later date, we shall make you a fresh offer at that time.
25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act.
462 of 1969 filed by it in the High Court of Delhi.
The reference was companyched in the following language.
Hence this appeal by the companypany by special leave.
Respondent raised an industrial dispute and the appropriate Government by the order dated May 30, 1968 referred the industrial dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal.
25FFF being termination companysequent upon closure, and therefore payment of companypensation was number a companydition precedent and the termination of service was valid, The learned Judge accordingly set aside the award and remitted the matter to the Tribunal to decide what directions, if any, are necessary in respect of retrenchment of the respondent in the light of the discussion in the judgment Respondent preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.
A Division Bench of Delhi High Court held that the reference made by the appropriate Government required the Industrial Tribunal to companysider whether the retrenchment was illegal or unjustified and therefore it was implicit in the reference itself that it was a case of retrenchment, validity of which to be examined in the reference and therefore it was number open to the learned Single Judge to change the base of the reference and to companye to the companyclusion that the case was one of closure of the industrial undertaking governed by Sec.
25 of 1970 against the decision of the learned Single Judge.
A learned Single Judge held that as the Delhi office of the appellant companypany was closed, the case of the respondent would be governed by Sec.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
By the award dated February 25, 1969.
R. Lalit, V.N. Ganpule and Mrs. V.D. Khanna for the Appellant.
25 of 1970.
Approaching the matter from this angle, the Division Bench set aside the decision of the learned Single Judge and restored the award made by the Industrial Tribunal.
Your leave shall run companycurrently with the numberice period, and you may avail of leave due to you, if any, during the numberice period.
the Industrial Tribunal held that the retrenchment of the respondent was illegal and unjustified and gave a declaration that he companytinues to be in service of the appellant company and is entitled to his wages till he is lawfully retrenched.
Jitendra Sharma for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. Respondent Shri Niranjan Dass was employed as a Senior Clerk by the appellant company as per the appointment order companytained in the letter dated April 10, 1962.
The numberice reads as under Due to the reduction in the volume of business of the Company as a result of the recession in sic services will number be required by the companypany after the 14th October, 1967, and this may be treated as statutory numberice of one month of termination of your service.
Respondent companytinued to serve in that capacity when on September 14, 1967, he was served with a numberice terminating his services.
Appellant company challenged the award in Civil Writ No.
The letter of appointment inter alia provided that the respondent may be posted any where in India or abroad as per the requirements of the companypany and it was signed by its Zonal Manager, Central Zone, Delhi.
1741 of 1980.
