#Section 25F

Bombay HC rules that oral termination of a workman, even without written documentation, violates Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act if retrenchment compensation and notice are not provided. The judgment reinforces that statutory compliance is mandatory regardless of the form of termination, impacting employers' HR practices across industries.

The Delhi High Court ruled that procedural defects in terminating casual workers do not automatically entitle them to reinstatement, especially when they are nearing retirement and reinstatement serves no meaningful purpose. Monetary compensation is the appropriate remedy in such cases, balancing statutory protections with practical realities of employment continuity.

Bombay High Court rules that termination violating Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act remains illegal even post-superannuation, but reinstatement is impracticable. Instead, the court awards ₹2 lakh as just monetary compensation, setting a precedent for retired workers denied procedural fairness.

Bombay HC rules that an employer's failure to produce salary and attendance records-when in its control-shifts the burden of proof, entitling superannuated workers to monetary compensation for illegal termination. The judgment reinforces that adverse inference applies even where continuous service is disputed, offering a critical remedy for workers denied reinstatement.

Madras High Court holds that co-terminous employment clauses are unenforceable unless explicitly communicated post-contract expiry, rendering termination illegal under Section 25F of the ID Act.