TARUN AGARWALA, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Ashish Srivastava, the learned counsel holding the brief of Shri Vipin Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Roop Narain, the learned counsel for respondent.
(2.) A dispute was referred before the Industrial Tribunal with regard to the validity and legality of the termination of the services of the workers in question and further for not considering them for further employment under Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal, after considering the material evidence on record, held that the workers were employed for a limited period, and upon the expiry of the fixed term, their services came to an end and consequently no retrenchment compensation was payable in view of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal, however, found that since the provisions of Section 25-H was violated, it therefore directed reinstatement but without any back wages. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) Admittedly, the termination of the services of the workers was not in violation of the provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The only question which is required to be considered is, whether the Tribunal was justified in directing reinstatement on account of the provision of Section 25-H. For facility, Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act is quoted hereunder: "2J-H. 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, give 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.";