Armaan, was working with his employer at Dadar (Kabootarkhana) in Mumbai. After some time, he was laid off by his employer. Armaan was offered another job at Virar in Mumbai, which also belongs to the same employer but i

Section 25E of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 deals with the Workmen not entitled to compensation in certain cases. It provides that: No compensation shall be paid to a workman who has been laid-off: if he refuses to accept any alternative employment in the same establishment from which he has been laid-off, or in any other establishment belonging to the same employer situate in the same town or village or situate within a radius of five miles from the establishment to which he belongs, if, in the opinion of the employer, such alternative employment does not call for any special skill or previous experience and can be done by the workman, provided that the wages which would normally have been paid to the workman are offered for the alternative employment also; if he does not present himself for work at the establishment at the appointed time during normal working hours at least once a day; if such laying-off is due to a strike or slowing-down of production on the part of workmen in another part of the establishment. In the given case, Armaan's present place of work is at Dadar, Mumbai and the employer has offered to work at another place at Virar, Mumbai which also belongs to the same employer. However, Virar is 14 km away from the current establishment, which is beyond the radius of 5 miles (approximately 8 km) mentioned in Section 25E(i). Therefore, since the alternative employment offered is beyond the prescribed radius, Armaan is entitled to get the compensation for lay-off. His claim is tenable.