Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Vs. Balbir Singh and ors. - Court Judgment |
| Labour and Industrial |
| Delhi High Court |
| Apr-29-1997 |
| Civil Writ Petition No. 1857 of 1995 |
| Y.K. Sabharwal and; D.K. Jain, JJ. |
| 67(1997)DLT468 |
| Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 25H |
| Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi |
| Balbir Singh and ors. |
| S.P. Chaudhary and; Ashok Aggarwal, Advs |
| Central Bank of India v. S. Satyam and Others
|
the case examined the necessity of completion of 240 days for obtaining re-employment under sections 25-h and 25-f of the industrial disputes act, 1947 - it was observed that the application of provision was not subject to application of section 25-f to avail the benefit of re-employment - the court held that the provision was applicable on all retrenched workmen - .....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, : (1996)iillj820sc , 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.
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.
(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, : (1996)IILLJ820SC , 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.