( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition is filed by the management challenging an Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad in ld -. No. 40 of 1991, dated 1-9-1993, wherein the dispute raised by the 1st respondent herein, as referred by the Government of india under Section 10 (1) (d)and (2-A) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947\ (for short the act ), was answered in favour of the employee granting relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

( 2 ) THE facts are not in dispute. Earlier, the 1st respondent herein along with some other employees of the petitioner-Bank, who were retrenched, filed Writ Petition No. 4482 of 1982 before this court seeking a Mandamus directing the petitioner herein to follow the procedure laid down under Section 25-H of the Act and reinstate them into service. The said Writ Petition was allowed on 17-2-1986 as under:". . . . . . . . . . . . THE cases of the petitioners would be considered as per the recruitment policy in force after following the procedure contemplated under Section 25-H of the Act read with rules 77 and 78 of the Rules. However, it is made clear that this direction does not effect the appointments already made. The respondent is accordingly directed to follow the Rules 77 and 78 of the Rules and consider the cases of the petitioners. "

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the petitioner herein filed Writ Appeal No. 791 of 1986, which was dismissed on 28-11-1986 with the following modification: ". . . The case of the writ petitioners will, therefore, be considered in accordance with Section 25-H only for the temporary appointment. The temporary posts, which may exist or arise in future, in such circumstances, the writ petitioners will be given a preferential treatment for appointment. If there is any dispute between any particular individual about the appointment or post itself, that can be agitated before any authority, which can decide after examining the facts of each case. " (emphasis supplied)

( 4 ) CHALLENGING the said Judgment, the petitioner herein filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and initially interim stay of the operation of the above judgment in Writ Appeal No. 791 of 1986 was granted and finally by an Order dated 31-7-1996 in Civil Appeal No. 1811 of 1992 (Central Bank of India v. S. Satyam^) allowed the appeal and set aside the above judgments of this court and dismissed Writ petition No. 4482 of 1982 holding as follows:"8. The plain language of Section 25-H speaks only of re-employment of retrenched workmen . The ordinary meaning of the expression retrenched workmen must relate to the wide meaning of retrenchment given in section 2 (oo ). Section 28-F also uses the word retrenchment but qualifies it by use of the further words workman. . . . . . . . . . . . who has been in continuous service for not less than one year1. Thus, Section 25-F does not restrict the meaning of retrenchment but qualifies the category of retrenched workmen covered therein by use of the further words workman. . . . who has been in continuous service for not less than one year . It is clear that Section 25-F applies to the retrenchment of a workman who has been in continues service for not less than one year and not to any workman who has been in continuous service for less than one year; and it does not restrict or curtail the meaning of retrenchment merely because the provision therein is made only for the retrenchment of a workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year. Chapter V-A deals with all retrenchment while section 25-F is confined only to the mode of retrenchment of workmen in continuous service for not less than one year. Section 25-G prescribes the principle for retrenchment and applies ordinarily the principle of last come first go which is not confined only to workmen who have been in continuous service for not less than one year, of ordered by Section 25-F. 9. The next provision