ORAL ORDER (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE) 1. The appellant is aggrieved by an oral order passed in Special Civil Application No.12092 of 2000 on 2-12-2005 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition preferred by the appellant. The said petition arose out of an order passed by Labour Court, Nadiad in Reference (LCN) No.281 of 1984 on 19-4-2000. The respondent herein, who is a workman, came to be retrenched by the appellant on 13-8-1983. He, therefore,raised the dispute and ultimately a reference was made to the Labour Court. The Labour Court did not find any fault with the retrenchment but found that provisions contained in Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act were committed breach of and, therefore, directed reinstatement of the respondent by the impugned judgment. Learned Single Judge also upheld the same and hence this appeal. 2. Learned advocate Mr.Kunal Nanavati appearing for Nanavati Associates submitted that the appeal is mainly canvassed on the ground that the entry of the respondent was a back-door entry and not a regular one, after following requisite procedure and, therefore, benefit cannot be taken by the respondent. He relied on decision in case of State of U.P. Vs. Neeraj Awasthi and others, (2006)1 SCC 667 , particularly paragraphs 75 and 76 and submitted that the appeal may be entertained. 3. We have examined the question and we find that there is no dispute about the fact that the respondent was retrenched and that at a subsequent point of time, a person junior to him was taken in service, whereas he was denied the said benefit. If we examine the decision, we find that the Apex Court in case of Neeraj Awasthi (Supra) has observed that when a post is not sanctioned, normally directions for reinstatement should not be issued. In the instant case there was no question of a sanctioned post for the reason that there is a breach of Section 25-H where a junior is given priority over the respondent. Otherwise if there is no sanctioned post and reinstatement is ordered, that may create administrative problems. But in the instant case that is not the situation. 4. The Apex Court in case of Central Bank of India Vs. Otherwise if there is no sanctioned post and reinstatement is ordered, that may create administrative problems. But in the instant case that is not the situation. 4. The Apex Court in case of Central Bank of India Vs. S.Satyam and others, (1996)5 SCC 419 has observed that the plain language of Section 25H speaks only of re-employment of âSretrenched workmen.âý The ordinary meaning of the expression âSretrenched workmenâý must relate to the wide meaning of âSretrenchmentâý given in Section 2(oo). It was also observed that Section 25-F does not restrict the meaning of retrenchment but qualifies the category of retrenched workmen covered therein by use of the further words âSworkman.... who has been in continuous service for not less than one yearâý. This being the legal position,we are unable to accept the contention of the appellant that because the respondent was not regularly appointed, benefit of Section 25-H cannot be extended to him. Respondent is a retrenched workman and as held by the Apex Court in case of Central Bank of India (Supra), the language of Section 25H has to be given a simple meaning so far it relates to the term of âSretrenched workmanâý. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. Civil Application No.8509 of 2007 5. In view of dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.