Warning: preg_replace(): Empty regular expression in [path]/showthread.php on line 2381

Warning: preg_replace(): Empty regular expression in [path]/showthread.php on line 2381

Warning: preg_replace(): Empty regular expression in [path]/showthread.php on line 2381
Workman is alleged to have abandoned the service, compliance under Section 25F required? - CiteHR

No Tags Found!

SH

Shai89308

Executive Hr

AS

Ammu Shanvi

Human Resource

GS

G SHASHI KRISHNA

Senior Manager - Hr

AH

Aizant HR

Human Resources

MA

MARSHAL

Safety Officer

AK

Anish Katoch

Hr Executive

PR

PranjalR

Hr Recruiter

AP

Alka Pal

Hr Executive

Karthikeyan8195

Management Consultant

MK

Mohit Kumar Puri

Head Marketing

AU

Austex

Accounts Manager


kumaracme
418

In the event a workman is alleged to have abandoned the service, can compliance under Section 25F of the ID Act be dispensed with?
From India, New Delhi
KK!HR
1422

Where the termination of service is under a stipulation in that behalf contained the Standing Order/service rules and opportunities have been given to the employee before presuming abandonment of service, the courts are likely to uphold the action as not amounting to retrenchment, and so compliance of Section 25 (F) is not called for. This is as per Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the ID Act.
From India, Mumbai
PRABHAT RANJAN MOHANTY
535

The Section 25 F is applicable and not applicable to be decided by the employer looking into the situation.

Where one does not want to consider the matter under section 25 F, can take a decision on strength of the case of Manju Saxena v. Union of India (“SC”). The Hon'ble court reiterated that if an employee abandons service voluntarily then they will not be covered under the ambit of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act (“ID Act”) 1947, which provides for condition precedents for retrenchment of workmen.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11766­-11767 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 30205­-30206 of 2017)

From India, Mumbai
umakanthan53
5967

Dear friends,

Critically analysing the ratio decidendi of the Supreme Court judgment rendered in Manju Saxena's case in the context of the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that a reasonable presumption of any employee's abandonment of service by the employer, though it is so provided for in the standing orders or service regulations applicable, ipso facto, cannot be a valid ground for skipping the provisions of section 25-F, unless a disciplinary proceedings conducted following the principles of natural justice.

In this connection, if we appreciate the definition of the term ' retrenchment ' u/s 2 (oo) of the IDA,1947 in its totality as well as with a conjunctive reading of sec.25-F, we can conclude that any act of the employer terminating the services of a workman having completed 240 days of continuous service in his establishment sans the exceptions mentioned therein becomes retrenchment. In such a situation, non-compliance of the provisions of sec.25-F would automatically render it illegal.

From India, Salem
kumaracme
418

What a fitting and knowledge reply from our erudite member of this forum. Dear Shri Umakanthan Sir, We are all amazed to be in this elite forum where a leader like you supports and train us in all aspects of HR and Legal avenues. Thanks for your great support and knowledge sharing among our team members.
From India, New Delhi
Find answers from people who have previously dealt with business and work issues similar to yours - Please Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query.




About Us Advertise Contact Us Testimonials
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service

All rights reserved @ 2024 CiteHR ®

All Copyright And Trademarks in Posts Held By Respective Owners.