Y. K. SABHARWAL ( 1 ) CW. 1835 andcm 3228/95 The main point to be considered in this case is whether Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. . 1947 would be applicable or not to the workmen who are not covered by Section 25-F of this Act. The point in issue is indicated in the order dated 24th May, t994 wherein the contention noticed is that where the workman has not served for a year. he is not emitted to retrenchment notice and workmen/respondents not having served for one year they were not entitled to notice of retirement on the true import of Section 25. There cannot be any doubt that when workmen had not served for, a year he would not be entitled to retrenchment notice under Section 25-F of the Act. The question here, however is different. It is whether a workman not covered by Section 25-F, is entitled to or not to the benefit of re-employment under Section 25-H of the Act. This point now standsconcluded by a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. S. Satyam and others JT 1996 (7) S C. 181 holding that Section 25-H is couched in wide language and is capable of application to all retrenched workmen, not merely those covered by Section 25-F. Thus workmen respondents herein cannot be denied benefit of Section 25h on the ground that they are not covered by Section 25e In view of this decision of the Supreme Court, the petition is dismissed.