Reinstatement of an employee under Section 25 (H) of the ID Act – against the orders of Labour court, the single Judge of High court ordered respondent herein , to be reinstated into service with back wages. –
Apex court held that The object behind enacting Section 25(H) of the ID Act is to give preference to retrenched employee over other persons by offering them reemployment in the services when the employer takes a decision to fill up the new vacancies.-So, in order to attract the provisions of Section 25(H) of the ID Act, it must be proved by the workman that firstly, he was the “retrenched employee” and secondly, his exemployer has decided to fill up the vacancies in their set up and, therefore, he is entitled to claim preference over those persons, who have applied against such vacancies for a job while seeking reemployment in the services.- The case at hand is a case where the respondent’s termination was held illegal and, in consequence thereof, he was awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.12,500/ in full and final
satisfaction. It is not in dispute that the respondent also accepted the compensation. This was, therefore, not a case of a retrenchment of the respondent from service as contemplated under Section 25(H) of the ID Act. – the respondent was not entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 25 (H) of the ID Act and seek reemployment by citing the case of another employee (Peon) who was already in employment and whose services were only regularized by the appellant on the basis of his service record in terms of the Rules. -In our view, the regularization of an employee already in service does not give any right to retrenched employee so as to enable him to invoke Section 25 (H) of the ID Act for claiming reemployment in the services. The reason is that by such act the employer do not offer any fresh employment to any person to fill any vacancy in their set up but they simply regularize the services of an employee already in service. Such act does not amount to filling any vacancy.- In our view, there lies a distinction between the
expression ‘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. – In our view, the Labour Court was, therefore,
justified in answering the reference in appellant’s favour and against the respondent by rightly holding that Section 25(H) of the ID Act had no application to the facts of this case whereas the High Court (Single Judge and Division Bench) was not right in allowing the respondent’s prayer by directing the appellant to give him reemployment on the post of Peon. -. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Impugned order is set aside and the award of the Labour Court is restored.