Management of the Barara Cooperative Marketingcum Processing Society Ltd v. Workman Pratap Singh
- shrey singh
- Jan 4, 2020
- 2 min read
Management of the Barara Cooperative Marketingcum Processing Society Ltd v. Workman Pratap Singh
CIVIL APPEAL No. 7 OF 2019 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17975 of 2014] decided on 02.01.2019
Bench
Abhay Manohar Sapre and Indu Malhotra, JJ FactThe Petitioner terminated the services of the Respondent. The Labour Court held that the respondent’s termination is bad in law and accordingly awarded compensation of Rs.12,500/¬ to the respondent in lieu of reinstatement in service. The Respondent filed a representation to the Petitioner praying that since the Petitioner has regularized the services of two other peons therefore, he has become entitled to claim reemployment in the Petitioner’s services in terms of Section 25 (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( “the ID Act”).HeldThe Court held that there was no case made out by the respondent (workman) seeking reemployment in the Petitioner’s services on the basis of Section 25 (H) of the ID Act because the respondent having accepted the compensation awarded to him in lieu of his right of reinstatement in service and secondly, Section 25 (H) of the ID Act had no application to the case at hand.SummaryJudgmentApplication of Section 25(H) of the ID ActFor applicability of S. 25(H) the workman needs to prove that:
firstly, he was the “retrenched employee” and
secondly, his exemployer has decided to fill up the vacancies in his set up. Then he became entitled to claim preference over those persons, who have applied against such vacancies for a job while seeking reemployment in the services.
Difference between the terms ‘employment’ and ‘regularization of the service”The expression ‘employment’ signifies a fresh employment to fill the vacancies whereas the expression ‘regularization of the service’ signifies that the employee, who is already in service, his services are regularized as per service regulations.
Comments