Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court bench consisting of Justice A M Sapre and Justice Indu Malhotra, in the case of appellant Manju Saxena, held that “Once it is established that the Appellant had voluntarily abandoned her service, she could not have been in “continuous service” as defined under section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act,1947. Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 lays down the conditions that are required to be fulfilled by an employer, while terminating the services of an employee, who has been in continuous service of the employer. Hence, section 25F of the I.D. Act would cease to apply on her.” Here, I.D. Act, 1947 means Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
This matter is of one Manju Saxena, working from the post of “Senior Confidential Secretary to Senior Manager” in HSBC bank which lapsed after her senior vacated services. Manju was granted her severance package after she declined the offer of four alternate positions by the Bank resulting to her termination. She approached the Industrial Tribunal seeking furtherance of the package offered where the tribunal ordered arrears to be paid. The case was moved to High Court by the bank where the award granted by the tribunal was set aside on account of the observation that she had voluntarily abandoned work.
However, the appellant further pleaded against the decision in the Supreme Court where the division bench agreed with the observations registered by the High Court Bench.
86540
103860
630
114
59824