Radhakrishnan, J.

Primarily two questions of law have arisen for consideration in these cases, one is whether the liability of the management to provide re-employment under section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act even in the event of a valid retrenchment, would cease on expiry of the time limit of 1 year prescribed under Rule 78 of the Kerala Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 and another is whether in the case of a closure of an undertaking under Section 25FFF of the I.D. Act the workmen could claim re-employment under Section 25H of the Act. We will deal with the first question first.

Rule 78 of the Kerala Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957

2. Conflicting views have been expressed by two learned Judges of this Court in O.P.10251 of 1985 and OP.6579 of 1986 on this question and hence these matters have been placed before us for an authoritative pronouncement. The view expressed in OP.10251/85 was that liability of the management to provide re-employment to retrenched workmen under section 25H would cease on the expiry of the time limit of one year prescribed under Rule 78 of the Kerala Industrial Disputes Rules and the workmen cannot seek any claim to the vacancies which arise after the period of one year as of right. Another view expressed in OP.6579/86 was that the mere fact that a workman, retrenched one year prior to the occurrence of vacancy, is not entitled to an individual notice under Rule 78 does not mean that his right to offer himself for re-employment under Section 25H is permanently lost. During the pendency of these cases another learned single Judge of this Court in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Cochin Labour Union, 2000-III-LLJ 1138, took the view that rule 78 which has prescribed that rights could be enforced only for limited period is neither illegal nor arbitrary, which according to the learned Judge was prescribed for the interest of employer as well as the employee.

3. Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 deals with re-employment of retrenched workmen which says that where any workmen ‘are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons. Industrial adjudication generally recognized the principle that if an employer retrenched the services of an employee on the ground that the employee in question had become surplus, it was necessary that whenever the employer had occasion to employ another hand the retrenched workman should be given an opportunity to join service. Apex court in Cawnpore Tannery Ltd. v. Guha & Sons, 1961 (2) LLJ 110 had pointed out that this principle was regarded as of general application in industrial adjudication on the ground that it was based on consideration of fair play and justice. Reference may be made to the decisions of the apex court in Vishuddananda Saraswathi Hospital v. their employees, 1949 LLJ 111, Kilburn and Company and Mac Neill and Company v. Their employees, 1950 LLJ 125 and Annapurna Mills v. Certain workmen, 1953-I LLJ 43. The above principle was statutorily recognized under Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act which is a substantive right of the employees who have been retrenched from employment. Section 38 of the Industrial Disputes Act empowers the appropriate Government to make rules for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the act. Sub-section 2(g) of Section 38 enables the appropriate Government to prescribe rules to give effect to the provisions of the Act. In exercise of powers conferred under section 38 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the Central Government framed the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. Rule 78 of the Central Rules obliges the employer to display on a notice board at least ten days before the date on which va