Non-participation in selection process precludes claims of seniority violation or re-employment under Sections 25G and 25H.

The petitioner was a daily-wage Electrical-Khalasi at the respondent university until 07.02.1994

In the first round of litigation (Old ID No. 136/2000), the Industrial Adjudicator dismissed his claim for reinstatement on 17.04.2006, finding he had not completed 240 days of continuous service as per Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act

This was upheld by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in 2011, who noted the petitioner failed to apply for regular appointment during a 1984 selection process

On appeal (LPA 105/2013), the Division Bench granted the workman liberty to raise a fresh dispute only on issues not previously decided

Consequently, a second industrial dispute was raised based on the alleged violation of Sections 25G and 25H of the ID Act, asserting that juniors were retained or subsequently appointed

The Industrial Adjudicator’s award dated 20.10.2018 again decided against the workman, leading to the present writ petition

1. Whether the termination of the workman's services was justified under Sections 25G and 25H of the ID Act, given the retention of alleged juniors and subsequent appointments

2. Whether the fresh industrial dispute was maintainable in light of previous findings that had attained finality

The court applied Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which mandates the "last come, first go" principle for retrenchment

It further applied Section 25H of the ID Act, which grants retrenched workmen a right to re-employment if they offer themselves for the same

Additionally, the court relied on the doctrine of finality of judgments, noting that the Division Bench’s liberty to raise a fresh dispute did not disturb earlier concurrent findings regarding the lack of 240 days of continuous service or the delay in raising the dispute

The Court reasoned that the Division Bench in the previous round of litigation did not set aside the findings of the Labour Court or the Single Judge; rather, it only allowed the petitioner to pursue issues "not previously decided"

The Court found that the finding that the workman failed to complete 240 days of service had attained finality

Regarding the alleged violation of Sections 25G and 25H, the Court determined these claims were "entirely misplaced" because the workman had failed to participate in the formal selection process conducted by the management

Having "skipped the selection procedure," the workman cannot claim a right to re-employment over candidates who were duly selected through a transparent process

The petition was dismissed, affirming that the workman was not entitled to relief under Sections 25G or 25H as he did not submit himself to the recruitment process and the previous findings regarding his service duration remained undisturbed