Whether Section 25-C recognises a common right of the industrial employer to lay off his workmen?
Section 25C of the Industrial Disputes Act does not recognize the inherent right of the employer to declare lay-off for reasons which he may regard as sufficient or satisfactory.
The provision outlines only the right of workmen to receive compensation if laid off for specific reasons as defined in Section 2(kkk).
Whether section 25C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 confers an inherent power on management to declare a lay-off, particularly in cases not explicitly covered by the standing order ?
Whether the management had the right to lay-off?
Whether the workmen are entitled to claim wages or compensation?
The Industrial Disputes Act does not inherently grant management the power to lay off employees without compensation unless this right is explicitly included in the contract of service or standing orders.
In the absence of such contractual terms, any lay-off imposed is unauthorized, and full wages are generally due to the affected workmen, subject to the Tribunal's discretion to adjust the compensation based on lay-off justification.
Whether the termination of the services of a female operator by the management is proper and legal?
If the termination is found improper, what relief the employee is entitled to?
While invoking the provisions of termination of services under the Certified Standing Orders, the principles of natural justice, which includes an opportunity to be heard, should be followed.
Whether the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G, and 25-H conflict with the definition of ‘retrenchment’ in Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947?
Whether the definition of ‘retrenchment’ in Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Dispute Act includes termination of service due to voluntary retirement, super annuation, and tenure appointment?
"Retrenchment" under Section 2(oo) covers any employer-initiated termination of service for any reason, excluding only those reasons explicitly stated in the statute.
Whether Section 25 M of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it stood under the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1976, is ultra vires and void?
The power to grant or refuse permission for retrenchment or lay-off under Section 25-N or Section 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, must be exercised based on an objective consideration of relevant facts.
Whether the school will be considered an industry or not under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947?
Whether a teacher employed in a school falls within the definition of the expression “workman” as defined in Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
A teacher cannot be referred to as a workman as the nature of the duties of a person must be manual or clerical to be held as a workman.
Does a lock-out fall under Section 2 (kkk) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which defines lay-off?
Whether the respondents are entitled to claim compensation or not?
The concept of a lock-out is essentially different from that of a lay-off, and where a closure of business qualifies as a lock-out under Section 2(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, it cannot be classified as a lay-off under Section 2(kkk) of the Act.
Whether General Duty Medical Officers Grade II be regarded as a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
Whether the termination of the doctor's (Respondent2) services by the management justified?
An individual cannot be regarded as a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 if he is working in a supervisory capacity.
Whether the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) is a charitable institution and is therefore exempt from income tax on its income?
A professional body can be a charitable institution if its primary object is to promote charitable purposes and its income is used solely for the advancement of its charitable objects.
Whether the respondent is a dealer in accordance with Section 2(11) of The Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959?
Whether the trust, by publishing and selling booklets and other literature bearing Saibaba's words, can be said to be engaged in a "business" as contained under Section
2(5A) of the Act?
A trust or religious organization that sells books and other literature at a nominal price to cover costs are not engaged in a business and is therefore not liable to pay sales tax.