10. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it
is not the case of the workman having been
terminated on satisfying the prescribed procedure of
law but, the retrenchment was on account of
respondent being a surplus workman and the nature of
the work being transitory,as can be noticed from the
judgment and award of the Labour Court in each case,
there is no seniority list maintained by the State.
It has also not adduced any evidence to indicate
that it has not continued taking work from other
workmen, overlooking the fact that present
respondent has continued to work for number of
years. Once there is a breach of Sections 25G and
25H of the Act, aspect of completion of 240 days'
work in a preceding year would also fall into
insignificance for attracting the applicability of
Section 25G of the Act. The workman is not required
to prove that he has completed 240 days during
twelve months preceding termination of service.
Section 25H of the Act makes it very clear that any
workman who is retrenched and if the employer
proposes to take into his employment any person, he
shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an
opportunity to the retrenched workman, who offer
themselves for reemployment shall have preference
over other persons. This having not been done in
case of all the respondents, the Labour Court has
rightly relied upon the various decisions, to hold
in terms that it is impermissible under the law."
