25H is violated. In such circumstances, relief of reinstatement
with continuity of service is contrary to provisions of Section 25H
of ID Act. He also ... terminated by
violating the provisions of Section 25F and Section 25H of ID Act.
His service was terminated on 8th March 2000. Against
which, dispute
25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act', for
short) and Rule 77 of the Industrial disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (ID
Rules ... guilty of violation of provisions of Section 25H of the Act. Section 25H
reads thus:
"25H. Where any workmen are retrenched, and
the employer
erroneous. Learned counsel submits that
provisions of sections 25F , 25G & 25H , ID Act do not attract the facts of the
present case
therefore, according to the labour court, Section 25F , 25G and 25H of the ID Act, 1947 have been violated by the petitioner and, therefore, based ... Page 1231 under Section 25G read with Section 25B and 25H of the ID Act, 1947. Apex court has considered that in case of irregular
they denied the violation of provisions of
Sections 25G and 25H of the ID Act.
5. The CGIT considered the evidence adduced by both ... 25H and the law settled by the Supreme Court in this regard.
7. Sections 25G and 25H of the ID Act reads thus
back wages in view of the violation of Section 25G , 25H of the ID Act and Rules 77 to 78 of the Rules ... services was clearly in violation of Section 25G & 25H of the ID Act which is the position of as laid down
without giving any opportunity of employment in violation of Section 25H of ID Act, 1947? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?
Before ... 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short) and Rules 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (ID Rules
petitioner and
thereby petitioner establishment committed breach of section 25H of
ID Act, 1947 since no offer was made by petitioner to respondent
workman ... necessary to note that
being independent provisions of section 25H of ID Act, 1947, as and
when in same category if new employee is recruited
employer has also violated the mandatory provisions of Section 25H
of ID Act because he has employed other employees after retrenchment
of the employee ... opponent has
violated the mandatory provisions of section 25F , 25G , 25H of ID Act
and Rule 81 of ID Rules. The employer has also violated
respondent, it could not have invoked either Section 25G or
25H of the ID Act; inasmuch as, it would be absurd to say that ... from the employer for the
purpose of Section 25G and 25H of the ID Act. The provisions
can be invoked qua similarly situated workman
