Raj Rani vs G.T.B. Hospital and Another

Mukul Mudgal, J.—Rule.

With the consent of the Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner not having completed 240 days in service is not claiming any benefit u/s 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act in this Court. However, in so far as Sections 25G and 25H of the Act are concerned, the Labour Court while holding against the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in Karnal Central Coop. Bank Ltd. Vs. P.O., Indl. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and Others, , to hold that any of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are not available to the petitioner who does not fulfill the criteria of having worked for 240 days. Sections 25G and 11 of the Act read as under :

"25 G. Procedure for retrenchment.--Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and be belongs to a particular category of workmen in the establishment in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workmen in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workmen who was be last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman.

25H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen.--Where any workmen are retrenched and the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons he shall in such manner as may be prescribed, given an opportunity [to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment and such retrenched workmen] who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons."

A view contrary to the above view was taken by this Court''s judgment reported as 2003 6 AD (DEL) 256. Accordingly it is clear that in so far as the Tribunal and Labour Courts of NCT of Delhi are concerned they are bound to follow the judgments of this Court and not that of Punjab and Haryana High Court. Accordingly the writ petition is partly allowed and the matter is remanded back for consideration in accordance with law on the question of Sections 25G and H as per the provisions laid down in judgment of this Court in 2003 VI AD (DELHI) 256 and the judgments of Hon''ble Supreme Court in (1999) 2 SLT 412-1999 2 AD (S.C.) 257 titled Samistha Dubey v. City Board, Elawath, 1997 LLR 628, titled Medical Supdt. Damacherla Anjaneyulu and Another Vs. Damcherla Venkata Seshaiah and Another, titled Kamlesh Singh v. Presiding Officer and Anr.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

The parties to appear before the Labour Court-I on 21st January, 2004.