Indian Journal of Industrial Relations: Economics & Social Dev.

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Corporate Restructuring: who Cares for the Employees?


Affiliations
1 School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


In the era of globalization the need to strike a balance between employee security and business requirements has become crucial. Mergers and acquisition laws allow the companies to restructure for various reasons. The Companies Act duly recognizes and protects the interests of the creditors and shareholders, whereas the employees have no say during the merger and they are forced to accept the terms prescribed by the employer during the transfer of an undertaking. This paper examines the extent to which the existing legal regime protects the interest of the employees during the transfer of an undertaking. The paper also gives some suggestions for improving and protecting the labor force during corporate restructuring.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Legislations: The Companies Act, 1956

  • Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

  • The Banking Regulation Act,1949

  • Cases: P.S. Offshore Interland Services ( P) Ltd &another v. Bombay offshore suppliers and services. [1992] 75 ComCas. 583 ( Bom.)

  • R.C. Cooper v. Union of India [1970]40 com Cas. 325( SC )

  • Brooke Bond India Ltd v. UB Ltd and others [1994] 79 ComCas .346. (Bom)

  • Re, Yellamma cotton ,woolen & silk mills Co. Ltd-Bank of Maharashtra v. Official Liquidator [1970] 40 Com Cas.466 ( My sore).

  • Miheer H. Mafatlal v. Mafatlal Industries Ltd (1996) 87 Com Cas 792

  • All India Blue star Employees Federation All India Blue star Employees Federation v. Blue Star Ltd ( 2000) 27 SCL 265 ( Bom ).

  • Coimbatore Cotton Mills Ltd and Lakshmi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd, In re (1980) 50 ComCas 623 ( Mad)

  • Hindustan Lever Employees Union v. Hindustan Ltd and others [1995] 83 ComCas.30

  • M.S.Jasara v. Governor , Reserve bank of India and others 46( 1992) DLT 665.

  • Chairman Canara Bank, Bangalore v. M.S. Jasara 1992 Lab. I. C. 1001 at P. 1007 (SC) .

  • Indian Bank v. K.Usha and another AIR 1998 SC 866, S.Sundaram v. ICICI Bank Ltd 2007 Indlaw MAD 146

  • Articles & Books : Samuel, Robbert S. (198 5), “Hostile Takeovers”, Harvard Business Review, 63

  • Stone, R W (1930), “Personnel Aspects of Mergers”, Journal of Business of the University of Chicago, 3: 192-204.

  • Macey, Jonathan R. (1989), “Externalities, Firm Specific Capital Investments and the Legal Treatment of Fundamental Corporate Changes”, Duke Law Journal, 1:173 -79

  • Malhotra, O. P (2004), The Law of Industrial Disputes, ( 6th ) Edn. New Delhi Lexis Nexis Butterworths.


Abstract Views: 279

PDF Views: 0




  • Corporate Restructuring: who Cares for the Employees?

Abstract Views: 279  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Fincy Pellisserry
School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore, India

Abstract


In the era of globalization the need to strike a balance between employee security and business requirements has become crucial. Mergers and acquisition laws allow the companies to restructure for various reasons. The Companies Act duly recognizes and protects the interests of the creditors and shareholders, whereas the employees have no say during the merger and they are forced to accept the terms prescribed by the employer during the transfer of an undertaking. This paper examines the extent to which the existing legal regime protects the interest of the employees during the transfer of an undertaking. The paper also gives some suggestions for improving and protecting the labor force during corporate restructuring.

References