PREM SHANKAR ASOPA, J. - (1.) IN this case, arguments were heard on 6.3.2009 and the order was reserved.
(2.) COUNSEL for the respondent -workman on application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act of 1947') submits that is applicable even in cases of fresh employment and re -employment on finding the violation of Section 25H of the Act of 1947. In this case, violation of Section 25H was found by the Labour Court, Bharatpur in para No. 11 and after holding retrenchment valid, necessary directions of re -employment was issued in para 12 of its award dated 26.5.2008.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner -RSRTC submits that provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 are mandatory and any violation of the same, the retrenchment is declared illegal and usually consequential order is to be passed of re -instatement of the workman with continuity of service with back -wags. Here, in the instance case, order of termination was held not violative of Section 25F but the further action of the petitioner management of recruiting new employee was held unjustified and violative of Section 25H of the Act of 1947 and Rule 78 of the Industrial Rules which are not mandatory, therefore, the order of the re -instatement of workman was not passed.;