MANAGEMENT OF COSMOS Vs. K G SATISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the Labour Court is right in setting aside the order of retrenchment dated 1. 10. 2001, in spite of rendering a clear finding that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned retrenchment, merely on account of the right conferred on the respondent-workman under Section 25h of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

(2.) AFTER going through the detailed award dated 12th October, 2004 of the Labour Court, we find that the Labour Court was carried away by the letter issued by the management on 3. 8. 2002 offering employment to the respondent-workman when a vacancy arises subsequent to the respondent-workman when a vacancy arises subsequent to the retrenchment. The said award was challenged by the management in writ petition No. 49182 of 2004. 2. 1. The learned Single Judge confirmed the order of reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service. However, direction with regard to payment of 20% backwages of the Labour Court was set aside. Hence, the present appeal by the management. 2. 2. Both the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-management and respondent-workman reiterated the submissions that were made before the learned Single Judge as well as the Labour Court. 2. 3. Admittedly, both sides do not seriously object to the finding rendered by the Labour Court that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order of retrenchment dated 1. 10. 2001. 2. 4. In that view of matter, the only issue that arises for our consideration is that whether the Labour Court is right in setting aside the order of retrenchment dated 1. 10. 2001, in spite of rendering a clear finding that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned retrenchment, merely on account of the right conferred on the respondent-workman under Section 25h of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 2. 5. In this regard, we are obliged to refer to Section 25h of the Act which reads as follows:

(3.) IT is a settled law that Section 25h only gives a preference to a retrenched workman and Such preference will be available only prospectively as and when future vacancy arises. It is the right conferred on the retrenched workman under Section 25h to ensure the employee, whose employment was retrenched on the ground that his employment became surplus and whenever the employer has an occasion to employ another hand, the retrenched workman should be given a preference to join in service. 3. 1. In Cawnpore Tannery Limited Vs. Guha S, 1961-II-LLJ-110, the Supreme Court held that: