Back
High Court Of Delhi
GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY - Appellant
Versus
BALBIR SINGH - Respondent
Civil Writ 1857 of 1995
Decided On : 04/29/1997
Section 25-H - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The court held that Section 25-H is applicable to all retrenched workmen, not just those covered by Section 25-F, based on the wide language of the provision and a previous decision of the Supreme Court.
Fact of the Case:
The case revolved around the applicability of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to workmen not covered by Section 25-F. The contention was that workmen not having served for one year were not entitled to notice of retrenchment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that workmen not covered by Section 25-F are entitled to the benefit of re-employment under Section 25-H, based on the wide language of the provision and a previous decision of the Supreme Court.
Issues: The main issue was whether workmen not covered by Section 25-F are entitled to the benefit of re-employment under Section 25-H of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India v. S. Satyam and Others, JT 1996 (7) S. C. 181, which held that Section 25-H is capable of application to all retrenched workmen, not merely those covered by Section 25-F.
Final Decision: In view of the Supreme Court decision, the petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) THE main point to be considered in this case is whether Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would be applicable or not to the workmen who are not covered by Section 25-F of this Act. The point in issue is indicated in the order dated 24th May, 1994 wherein the contention noticed is that where the workman has not served for a year, he is not entitled to retrenchment notice and workman/respondents not having served for one year, they were not entitled to notice of retrenchment on the true import of Section 25. There cannot be any doubt that when workman had not served for a year, he would not be entitled to retrenchment notice under Section 25-F of the Act. The question here, however, is different. It is whether a workman not covered by Section 25-F, is entitled to or not to the benefit of re-employment under Section 25-H of the Act. This point now stands concluded by a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India v. S. Satyam and Others, JT 1996 (7) S. C. 181, holding that Section 25-H is couched in wide language and is capable of application to all retrenched workmen not merely those covered by Section 25-F. Thus workmen respondents herein cannot be denied benefit of Section 25-H on the ground that they are not covered by Section 25f. In view of this decision of the Supreme Court the petition is dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
