( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3447 OF 1996 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2232 OF 2003 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8881 OF 2004 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4851 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7589 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra .. Petitioner through Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. Versus 1. Shri Babasaheb Baburao Mandlik .. Respondents R/o. Dhangarwadi, Post – Wakadi, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. The Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Ahmednagar. Shri D.V. Tele, A.G.P. for the petitioner. Shri N.C. Garud, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 16.09.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. This is a writ petition filed by the first party before the Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Ahmednagar, ( 2 ) in Ref. I.D.A. No. 44 of 1990, decided on 23.11.1995. 2. Briefly stated, it is case of respondent No. 1/second party that he was in employment of first party from 1979 till 02.05.1986; and on 03.05.1986, he was orally terminated. He was in continuous service. He was retrenched without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the I.D. Act”). Therefore, he approached the Labour Commissioner and then reference made under the I.D. Act. 3. The defence of the petitioner/first party is that from 03.05.1986, the respondent No.1 has abandoned the service and he was not terminated. Therefore, there was no question of any compliance. It is also alleged that respondent No.1 was not in continuous service as alleged by him. It is also stated that the reference was not in time. 4. So far as continuous service is concerned, in para 9 the award the Labour Court has come to a definite conclusion after going through the muster record produced at Exh. C-8 that second party has not rendered service for 240 ( 3 ) days as required and therefore he will not be in continuous service. Further, at the same time, he came to a conclusion that it was not a case of abandonment. There was no satisfactory evidence regarding the same. The Labour Court also held that there was breach of section 25-H, 25-G and 25- F of the I.D. Act. Ultimately, he passed order of reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. When the Labour Court has come to a conclusion that respondent No.1 has not rendered continuous service within the meaning of Section 25-B of the I.D. Act, Section 25-F of the I.D. Act would not be applicable. Section 25-F of the I.D. Act is as follows :- “25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen - No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until - (a) the workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice: (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and ( 4 ) (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.” 5. So, thus Sections 25-F of the I.D. Act is applicable where workman has been in continuous service for not less than one year. However, that will not prevent the respondent No.1 from getting advantage of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the I.D. Act, which are as follows:- “25-G. Procedure for retrenchment – Where any workman is an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman. 25-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.” ( 5 ) 6. The Labour Court has come to a conclusion in para 12 of the award that the person who was junior to the present respondent No.1 was taken in service. Therefore, there is breach of Section 25-G of the I.D. Act. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the award passed by the First Labour Court on 23.11.1995 is modified, in as much as, present respondent No.1 is not entitled to reinstatement, but he is entitled to employment under Sections 25-G and 25-H of the I.D. Act, and whenever there is vacancy hereafter, respondent No.1 should be given preference in getting the job; unless the petitioner makes out case that the person who was senior to the respondent No. 1 as on 02.05.1986 has to be given employment first. In that case, as soon as next vacancy arises, respondent No.1 shall be automatically accommodated as daily worker, as per rules. 8. Rule made partly made absolute and the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 9. The learned A.G.P. to communicate this order to the concerned department. Parties to act on the authenticated ( 6 ) copy of this judgment signed by P.S./P.A. 10. In view of disposal of this writ petition, Civil Application Nos. 2232 of 2003, 8881 of 2004, 4851 of 2007 and 7589 of 2008 do not survive. The Civil Applications stand disposed of as such. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/SEP09/wp3447.96