MANAGEMENT OF THE BARARA COOPERATIVE MARKETING-CUM-PROCESSING SOCIETY LTD. versus WORKMAN PRATAP SINGH

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 02-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
1
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 1
 MANAGEMENT OF THE BARARA COOPERATIVE
MARKETING-CUM-PROCESSING SOCIETY LTD.
v.
WORKMAN PRATAP SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2019)
JANUARY 02, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.25(H) – Applicability of –
Held: s.25(H) applies to the cases where employer has proposed to
take into their employment any persons to fill up the vacancies – It
is at that time, the employer is required to give an opportunity to the
“retrenched workman” and offer him re-employment and if such
retrenched workman offers himself for re-employment, he shall have
preference over other persons, who have applied for employment
against the vacancy advertised – Industrial Disputes (Central)
Rules, 1957 – r.78.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.25(H) – Termination from
service – Respondent working as peon in the appellant-society –
Terminated from services in 1985 – Labour court held the
termination as bad in law and awarded lump sum compensation of
Rs.12500 to the respondent in lieu of reinstatement in service – Writ
petitions by both the parties were dismissed by High Court –
Thereafter, respondent accepted the compensation which was
awarded by labour court – In 1993, respondent prayed for re-
employment in the appellant’s services in terms of s.25(H) in view
of regularization of services of two peons in that year – Entitlement
of respondent to claim re-employment – Held: There was no case
made out by the respondent (workman) seeking re-employment in
the appellant’s services on the basis of s.25(H) – Respondent having
accepted the compensation awarded to him in lieu of his right of
reinstatement in service, the said issue finally came to an end –
Moreover, s.25 (H)  had no application to the case at hand – In
order to attract the provisions of s.25(H),  the workman has to prove
that he was the “retrenched employee” and that his ex-employer
has decided to fill up the vacancies in their set up and, therefore,
he is entitled to claim preference over those persons, who have
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
applied against such vacancies for a job while seeking re-
employment in the services –  This was, therefore, not a case of a
retrenchment of the respondent from service as contemplated under
s.25(H) of the ID Act.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.25(H) – Regularization and
employment – Distinction between – Held: The expression
‘employment’ signifies a fresh employment to fill the vacancies
whereas the expression ‘regularization of the service’ signifies that
services of the employee, who is already in service are regularized
as per service regulations.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The object behind enacting Section 25(H) of the
ID Act is to give preference to retrenched employee over other
persons by offering them re-employment in the services when
the employer takes a decision to fill up the new vacancies.  Section
25(H) of the ID Act is required to be implemented as per the
procedure prescribed in Rule 78 of the Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957  which, in clear terms, provides that Section
25(H) of the ID Act is applicable only when the employer decides
to fill up the vacancies in their set up by recruiting persons.  It
provides for issuance of notice to retrenched employee prescribed
therein in that behalf. In order to attract the provisions of Section
25(H) of the ID Act,  it must be proved by the workman that
firstly, he was the “retrenched employee” and secondly, his ex-
employer has decided to fill up the vacancies in their set up and,
therefore, he is entitled to claim preference over those persons,
who have applied against such vacancies for a job while seeking
re-employment in the services. [Paras 17, 18, 19][5-F-H; 6-A-B]
2. The case at hand is a case where the respondent’s
termination was held illegal and, in consequence thereof, he was
awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.12,500/- in full and final
satisfaction.  It is not in dispute that the respondent also accepted
the compensation.  This was, therefore, not a case of a
retrenchment of the respondent from service as contemplated
under Section 25(H) of the ID Act.  That apart and more
importantly, the respondent was not entitled to invoke the
provisions of Section 25 (H) of the ID Act and seek re-employment
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
by citing the case of another employee (Peon) who was already in
employment and whose services were only regularized by the
appellant on 

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