Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19. On the request made by this Court, the learned Advocate General drew the attention of this Court to the real scope of Section 25H of the I.D. Act and the said provision reads as follows:

25H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen.--
Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity [to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen] who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons.
(c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health;]

21. As can be seen from the said definition, Section 2(oo)(bb) was introduced by Central Act 49 of 1984 and it was brought into force with effect from 18.8.1984. Therefore, if any person who seeks a claim of re-employment under Section 25H of the I.D. Act, must necessarily satisfy the amended definition of the term 'retrenchment' in order to claim preference in employment. Though the Apex Court had taken the view that in order to qualify for the right of re-employment under Section 25H of the I.D. Act, one need not satisfy the condition found in Section 25H of the I.D. Act, but from the word 'retrenched' found in Section 25H of the I.D. Act, it should take the colour from the definition found in Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act.

Para 11: Chapter V-A providing for retrenchment is not enacted only for the benefit of the workmen to whom Section 25F applies but for all cases of retrenchment and, therefore, there is no reason to restrict application of Section 25H therein only to one category of retrenched workmen. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of Shri Pai that a restricted meaning should be given to the word 'retrenchment' in Section 25H. This contention is, therefore, rejected.
But it must be stated that as seen from the facts of the said case as narrated in paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the said decision came to be made before the amendment of Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act in the year 1984 wherein one more exception, viz., 2(oo)(bb) has been introduced as referred to earlier.

24. These two decisions of the Supreme Court were rendered before the amendment to Section 2(oo) and the same was not noticed by this Court. In order to understand Section 25H of the I.D. Act (after the amendment to Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act in the year 1984 with effect from 21.8.2004), one has to undertake a new exercise and only in that context, G.O.Ms. No. 41 will have to be interpreted.

25. The learned Advocate General fairly conceded that the import of the amendment to Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act and the introduction of Sub-section 2(oo)(bb) by amending Act 49 of 1984 dated 18.8.1984 has not been gone into by this Court in the earlier rulings. He also stated that the impugned order of the respondent Corporation has correctly stated that in order to qualify for re-employment under Section 25H of the I.D. Act, one has to bring their non-employment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act as amended by Act 49 of 1984. He also agreed that G.O.Ms. No. 41 more particularly, paragraphs 4(ii) and 4(iii) are loosely worded, which may give rise to all kinds of claims. However, in the batch of cases, disposed on 14.12.2006, the learned Judge had stated in paragraph 139(3)(a) that the employees, who were terminated from service subject to the condition that such employees have completed 240 days of service in a period of 12 calender months, preceding the date on which the vacancies are sought to be filled up by G.O.Ms. No. 57 Transport (C1) Department dated 21.7.2005, should be considered first and thereafter, to consider the employees, who have not completed the required service as per Section 25H of the I.D. Act for re-employment. But, however, the same should not be applied to persons, who have not actually worked under the Corporation, but made a bogus claim.