Section 25H re-employment preference applies only to workmen retrenched after satisfying Section 25F eligibility.

The workman claimed that he had been employed by the management since 2003 and that, after suffering an accident on 1 October 2011, he was not permitted to resume duty on 18 November 2011, which amounted to illegal termination.

The Labour Court found, on the basis of documentary evidence, that the workman had resigned on 30 June 2010 after collecting his dues and had thereafter been freshly appointed on 19 September 2011.

Since he had worked for only about 11 days before the accident, the Labour Court held that he had not completed 240 days of service and was not entitled to protection under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”), and rejected the reference.

The learned Single Judge upheld that decision, following which the workman preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

Whether the workman’s alleged non-permission to resume duty on 18 November 2011 constituted illegal retrenchment despite his having worked for fewer than 240 days in the preceding year.

Whether the workman could claim the benefit of Sections 25G and 25H of the ID Act, particularly the right to re-employment, on the ground that another person had been employed in his place, despite not satisfying the requirements of Section 25F.

The Court applied Section 25F of the ID Act, which prescribes procedural safeguards and retrenchment compensation for a workman who has completed the requisite period of continuous service, understood in the present case as 240 days in the preceding year.

It further applied Sections 25G and 25H, holding that the protections concerning retrenchment and re-employment operate in the context of a retrenchment to which Section 25F applies; consequently, a workman who has not acquired entitlement under Section 25F cannot invoke Section 25H merely because another person has allegedly been appointed.

The Court accepted, for purposes of argument, the workman’s contention that refusal to permit him to resume duty amounted to termination.

However, the undisputed evidence showed that he had been freshly appointed on 19 September 2011 and had worked for less than 11 days before the accident on 1 October 2011.

He therefore had not completed 240 days of service in the preceding year and was not entitled to the safeguards or compensation contemplated by Section 25F.

Since the right of re-employment under Section 25H was held to be available only to a workman retrenched in circumstances attracting Section 25F, the alleged appointment of another person could not independently confer a right under Section 25H.

The Labour Court and the learned Single Judge had accordingly reached the correct conclusion.

It held that, even assuming that he had been terminated on 18 November 2011, his short period of service meant that Section 25F did not apply, and he consequently could not claim the benefits of Sections 25G or 25H of the ID Act.

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding the Labour Court’s rejection of the reference was affirmed.