Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 25h in Barkatulla vs State And Ors (2025:Rj-Jd:17121) on 2 April, 2025Matching Fragments
5. The petitioner filed a claim petition before the Tribunal and asserted that he was appointed as helper on 01.12.1991 and continuously worked with the respondents upto 15.10.1992 until he was retrenched by oral orders.
6. The petitioner claimed before the Tribunal that the respondents had violated the mandate of section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act of 1947 and therefore, he was entitled for reinstatement.
7. The reply/response was furnished by the respondents interalia contending that the petitioner has not worked for more than 240 days and therefore, he cannot be treated to be a workman having continuously served the respondents for a period of one year. A plea was taken by the respondent-State that the [2025:RJ-JD:17121] (3 of 9) [CW-1920/2003] petitioner had worked only for 208 days (up to September, 1992), whereafter he had voluntarily stopped coming on duties.
12. Having said so, Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner alternatively argued that if this Court does not wish to enter into the factual dispute regarding the number of days, which the petitioner had worked, then petitioner's other arguments that the respondents have violated the mandatory provisions of section 25G and 25H ought to have been considered.
13. Inviting Court's attention towards the pleadings and the affidavit, learned counsel submitted that persons appointed after the petitioner namely Hukma Ram, Bhagwana Ram and Narayan Patel have been kept in services while the petitioner had been retrenched. He submitted that after the petitioner was retrenched, one Oma Ram was appointed by the respondents, which fact establishes that the respondents had violated the mandate of section 25G and 25H of the Act of 1947, which enjoins upon the employer to apply the principle of Last-In, First-Out (hereinafter referred to as 'LIFO').
16. In relation to petitioner's argument about violation of provisions of section 25G and 25H of the Act of 1947, leaned counsel submitted that the petitioner had voluntarily stopped coming to the services and therefore, it was a case of voluntary abandonment of service.
17. He argued that since the petitioner had not been retrenched, there was no occasion for the respondents to follow the principle of LIFO and to offer him appointment as provided under section 25G and 25H of the Act of 1947.
29. If provisions of sections 25F, 25G and 25H are read in juxtaposition, there is a significant difference in the language used in section 25G and 25H of the Act of 1947 vis-a-vis the language used in section 25F of the Act of 1947. Section 25F pre-supposes 'continuous service of one year', which expression has been defined in section 25B of the Act of 1947 to mean 240 days in one [2025:RJ-JD:17121] (8 of 9) [CW-1920/2003] calendar year. Whereas, the expression of 'continuous service of one year' is completely absent in section 25G and 25H.