Case Title: Management of the Barara Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ltd. V. Workman Pratap Singh
The term "employment" refers to new employees filling openings, whereas the term "regularisation of the service" refers to the regularisation of an employee's services in accordance with service regulations.
Highlighting the distinction between the terms "employment" and "regularisation of the service," the Supreme Court noted that retrenched employees do not have any right to rely on Section 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act in order to request re-employment in the workforce.
In 1985, the management of a Cooperative Marketing Society fired Pratap Singh from his position. He went to the labour court and was given compensation, which he eventually accepted. Later in 1993, he went back to the labour court, this time claiming that the management had regularised the employment of two peons and that as a result, he was now qualified to seek re-employment under Section 25 (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The labour court rejected his lawsuit. Singh's petition was accepted by the High Court, which overturned the Labour Court's judgement and ordered Singh to be rehired as a peon.
The highest court's bench of Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Indu Malhotra noted that Singh had accepted the amount given to him in lieu of his right to be reinstated in service in response to the management's appeal. Additionally, it was noted that section 25(H) of the ID Act only applies in situations where an employer has suggested hiring individuals to fill open positions.
The bench further stated that in order for a worker to be covered by Section 25(H) of the ID Act, he must demonstrate that he was a "retrenched employee" and that his former employer had decided to fill the open positions in their organization. As a result, the worker is entitled to claim preference over those individuals who had applied for jobs in response to those vacancies while looking for re-employment in the services.
"It is at that time, the employer is required to give an opportunity to the 'retrenched workman' and offer him re-employment and if such retrenched workman offers himself for re-employment, he shall have preference over other persons, who have applied for employment against the vacancy advertised," the court said.