effect from 6.10.1982 and not considering
him for further employment under Section 25H of
the Industrial Disputes Act is justified? If not, to
what relief ... alleged that the bank had violated the provisions of
Section 25H of the Act and also paragraph 497 of the
Shastri Award which was applicable
Disputes rules, 1958 ('the Rules', for short) as also
Section 25H thereof.
Mr. S.K. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf ... termination of Respondent
being on daily-wage basis, Sections 25G and 25H of the Act have no
application in the instant case. It was further
this way the employer bank committed breach of Sections 25C and 25H of Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The action ... amount to retrenchment,
Sections 25G and 25H of the Act have no ap
plication. It has also been submitted that re-:
cruitment to the post
Once he had not been retrenched, no preference in terms of Section 25H of the I.D. Act can be given to him. Further ... direction to the respondent for his re-employment under Section 25H of the I.D. Act and also to extend the benefit of the above
Industrial Chemical Ltd. vs Labour Court And Ors. on 14 December, 1976
Equivalent citations: (1977
statutory protection by the aforesaid Act 5 of 1970. Even under Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, retrenched employees are entitled to preference ... about to retire. Paragraph 20.12 of the bipartite settlement and Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act and Rule 78 of the Industrial Disputes Central
respondents to re-employ the petitioner as Driver as per Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act and to extend the benefit ... Once he had not been retrenched, no preference in terms of Section 25H of the I.D. Act can be given to him. Further
workmen were terminated without complying with the provisions of Sections 25G and 25H of the Act. The attention of the Court was drawn ... absence of the same, the provisions of Sections 25G and 25H are deemed to be violated. Reliance was also placed on the following judgments rendered
follows:
"11. By upholding the right of these workmen under Section 25H of the I.D. Act, direction is hereby given to the management ... that the workers are not entitled to the protection of Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, as they do not satisfy the requirements
Section 25F applies, that section also. In the matter of reemployment Section 25H would apply, but since it was not contended in those cases that ... Section 25H would operate so as to defeat the rights
of regular recruits through the Public Service Commission that was not dealt with
