CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA versus S. SATYAM AND OTHERS

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 214 · Decided: 31-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 
v. 
S. SATYAM AND OTHERS 
JULY 31, 1996 
B 
[J.S. VERMA AND K. VENKATASWAMY, JJ.] 
Labour Laws : 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 25-H, 25-F; · 25-B, L5-G and 
C 2(oo}-Scope and applicability of-Held, the object is to benefit the 
retrenched workmen and is applicable to all retrenched workmen and not only 
to those covered by Section 25-F read with Section 25-B. 
Principle of "last come first go" appearing in Sectio1i 25-G-Ap-
plicability of-Held, not confined only to wo1ionen who were in continuous 
D service for one year and above. 
E 
F 
G 
Re-employment-P1ioiity of claims-Retrenched workmen covered by 
Section 25-F-Held, entitled to p1i01ity in re-employment over retrenched 
workn1en not so covered. 
Sections 25-H and 2(oo) read with Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 
1957, Rules 77 & 78-Plea for restricted inte1pretation of the word 'retrenched' 
occuning in Section 25-H and the contention that application of the wide 
nteaning of 'retrenclunent' contained in Section 2( oo) and Section 25-H 
would render Rules 77 & 78 unworkable. 
Constitution of India : 
A1ticle 226-Delay/lac11es-Wiit petition by retrenched workmen against 
the employer after a long delay of about six years without impleading the 
persons employed dwing that peiiod-Maintainability of 
Writ petition was filed by the retrenched workmen after a long delay 
of about six years before the High Court for re- employment. It was allowed 
by the High Court. Hence this appeal. 
The appellant contended that the definition of 'retrenchment' con-
H tained in Section 2(oo) of the ID Act has to be curtailed in its application 
214 
CENTRALBANKOFIND!Av. S.SATYAM 
215 
to Section 25-H and that.the word 'retrenched' in section 25-H the same A 
meaning as it has in Section 25-F read with Section 25-B and 25-G as they 
all formed part of the same scheme in Chapter V-A of the Act. It was 
further contended that unless the application of Section 25-H was con-
fined to the workmen covered by Section 25-F, Rules 77 and 78 of the ID 
(Central) Rules would become unworkable. 
Allo\\ing the appeal, this Court 
B 
HELD : 1. The plain language of Section 25-H of th·e Industrial 
Disputes Act speaks only of re-employment of 'retrenched workmen'. The 
ordinary meaning of the expression 'retrenched workmen' must relate to C 
the wide meaning of 'retrenchment' given in Section 2(00). Section 25-F 
does not restrict the meaning of retrenchment but qualifies the category 
of retrenched workmen covered therein by use of the further words 
"workman ...... who has been in continuous service for not less than one 
year". Section 25-G prescribes the principle for retrenchment and applies 
ordinarily the principle of "last come first go" which is not confined only D 
to workmen who have been in continuous service for not less than one year, 
covered by Section 25-F. 
Section 25-H is capable of application to all retrenched workmen, 
not merely those covered by Section 25-F. It does not require curtailment E 
of the ordinary meaning of the word 'retrenchment' used therein. The 
provision for re-employment of retrenched workmen gives preference to a 
retrenched workmen in the matter of re-employment over other persons. 
It is enacted for the benefit of the retrenched workmen and there is no 
reason to restrict its ordinary meaning which promotes the object of the 
enactment without causing any prejudice to a better placed retrenched F 
workmen. Chapter V-A, in which Section 25-H occurs, provides for 
retrench~ent and is not enacted only for the benefit of the workmen to 
whom Section 25-F applies but for all cases of retrenchment and, therefore, 
there is no reason to restrict the application of Section 25-H therein only 
to one category of retrenched workmen. [224-A-G] 
G 
Pu11jab La11d Developmel!t and Reclamatio11 a11d Corporatio11 Ltd. 
Chandigarh Etc. Etc. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Cowt Chandigarh & Ors. 
Etc. Etc., [1990] 3 SCC 682, relied on, 
2. Rule 77 requires the employer to maintain a seniority list of H 
216 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A workmen in that particular category for which the retrenchment is con-
templated arranged according to the seniority of their service. Th.e 
category of workmen to whom Section 25-F applies is distinct from fhose 
to whom it is inapplicable. There is no practical difficulty in maintenance 
of seniority list of workmen with reference to the particular category to 
B which they belong. R

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.