Whether the retrenched employee who accepted compensation in full ,can be reinstated under sec.25 H of ID Act without calling for filling of vacancies ? – No –


Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre


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.