Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.28 seconds)Section 25H in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 25F in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Harjinder Singh vs Punjab State Warehousing Corp on 5 January, 2010
2. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya has submitted that the
judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is required
to be quashed and set aside since the learned Single Judge has
failed to appreciate the fact that there was violation of the
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Fri Apr 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 28 21:54:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/254/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
provisions of Sections 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") while terminating the
services of the appellant-workman. While placing reliance on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Harjinder Singh v.
Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 3 SCC 192, it is
submitted that in order to prove the violation of the provisions of
Section 25G of the Act, which envisages 'first come last go', it is not
required for the workman to prove that he worked for 240 days.
Surendranagar District Panchayat vs Dahyabhai Amarsinh on 25 October, 2005
9. So far as the violation of Sections 25G and 25H of the Act is
concerned, we may, refer to the affidavit filed by the respondent-
Board at Exh.25. In the affidavit it is specifically mentioned that the
appellant was engaged primarily for providing water to villagers in
draught. In his oral evidence before the Labour Court, on a question
put on behalf of the appellant about his employment during
drought, the witness of the Board has specifically deposed that the
appellant was only engaged during draught as per the requirement
of work orally, and after 30.06.1994, he has not been engaged on
work. Thus, the appellant was employed for a specific purpose
intermittently for supply water during draught. The muster roll
proves that he has been engaged during summer. There is almost
one year gap between his employment in June , 1994 to May ,
1995. Thus, his engagement was for supplying water during
draught only, for a particular project of supplying water. At this
stage, refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Dahyabhai Amarsinh (supra). The Supreme Court, while
examining the provisions of Sections 25G and 25H of the Act read
with Section 2(oo) of the Act, has observed thus:-
1