JUDGMENT

J.S. Verma, J.-The short question is : whether the re-employment of retrenched workmen required by Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act ) is confined only to the category of re-trenched workmen covered by Section 25-F who have been in continuous service for not less than one year? The controversy arises in view of the wide meaning of "retrenchment" given in its definition contained in Section 2(oo) of the Act to cover all kinds of terminations for any reason whatsoever. This wide meaning is settled by the decision of this Court in Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh etc. etc. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh & Ors. etc. etc.1. On behalf of the appellant (employer) it is contended that the meaning given in the definition of retrenchment contained in Section 2(oo) is to be read subject to the context and the context in Section 25-H indicates that the word "retrenched" in Section 25-H has the same meaning as it has in Section 25-F and 25-G, reading Section 25-F along with Section 25-B since they all form a part of the same scheme in Chapter V-A of the Act.

2. It was argued by Shri Pai, learned se