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.
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 the Corporation, under Regulation 17(3), is under an obligation to offer alternative employment to medically unfit drivers, or if such discretion rests solely with the Corporation?
Whether the High Court erred in directing the Corporation to provide alternative employment to the respondents?
Regulation 17(3) grants the Corporation the authority to terminate drivers who fail the test and, at its discretion, to offer alternative employment. This discretion is not obligatory and must be exercised fairly and reasonably, considering the Corporation’s operational needs.
Whether the termination of the driver’s services amounted to retrenchment within the meaning of section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
Whether the termination was in compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act?
Even if an illness does not affect general health or capacity but hampers the efficient working of the assigned duties, it falls under the purview of “ill health.”
Whether a registered trade union representing a minority of workmen governed by an award can give notice to the other party intimating its intention to terminate the award under Section 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
A notice to terminate an award can be issued by a group of workmen acting collectively, even if that group represents a minority of the workmen bound by the award.
Whether the erstwhile workmen were entitled to claim compensation under clause (b) of Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947?
Whether the workmen had been retrenched within the meaning of the expression 'retrenchment' in the Industrial Dispute Act of 1947?
Retrenchment refers to the discharge of surplus labor in a continuing business and does not include termination due to a bona fide closure or transfer of ownership.