JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A Dasgupta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents. 10 petitioners have joined together and have filed this writ petition as a common proceeding since grievance raised and relief claimed are identical. According to the petitioners, they were engaged as casual workers in the Regional Muga Research Station at Boko, which is under the administrative control of Silk Board, a statutory body under the Ministry of Textiles, Govt. of India. Work entrusted to the petitioners and other similarly situated workmen were permanent in nature relating to supervision of muga plantation. Though the nature of the works were permanent in nature, engagement of the workmen were continued at a stretch for not more than 58 days; after a technical break, the workmen were again allowed to resume work. Petitioners and other workmen are members of Boko Anchalik Gobeshona Kendra Sramik Sanstha, a trade union, registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926. Through the trade union, the workmen raised a demand for regularization of their service; such demand on the part of the workmen led to an industrial dispute. However, conciliation proceedings failed whereafter, Conciliation Officer submitted report before the appropriate Government, consequent upon which, a reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati by the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Labour for adjudication of the following issue: - “Whether the action of the management of Regional Muga Research Station, Boko in terminating the service of 34 workmen and not giving them due opportunity of re-employment is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen were entitled to?” The reference was registered as Ref. Case No.13(C) of 1997. The reference had seen several rounds of litigation, the details of which may not be necessary to be gone into at this stage. Suffice it to say, the matter was last remanded back to the Tribunal by this Court for a fresh decision on the question as to whether the workmen had completed 240 days of service or not during the preceding 12 months. Be that as it may, the reference was contested by both the sides by filing written statements and adducing of evidence. On due consideration, learned Tribunal held that break in the service of the workmen was not intentional and it was justified. Be that as it may, the reference was contested by both the sides by filing written statements and adducing of evidence. On due consideration, learned Tribunal held that break in the service of the workmen was not intentional and it was justified. If the break periods were not counted, the workmen did not complete 240 working days during the preceding 12 months and, therefore, they were not entitled to the benefit of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act). Work rendered by the petitioners were treated to be seasonal in nature. Disengagement of the workmen on closure of the seasonal work was also not held to be retrenchment within the meaning of section 2 (OO) of the Act. On the prayer of the workmen for regularization of service, learned Tribunal referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and held that casual workers had no right to claim regularization. In the light of the above findings, reference was answered in favour of the management. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed. Notice in this case was issued on 26.11.2012. While issuing notice, Court posed a question regarding entitlement of the petitioners to seek re-employment by virtue of the provisions contained in section 25H of the Act. A detailed affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2 justifying the award passed by the Tribunal. It is also contended that petitioners are not entitled to the benefit under section 25H, because to avail such benefit, the concerned workmen must fulfill the required criteria provided under section 25B of the Act, which is a condition precedent. Mr. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the petitioners in his short submission has confined the prayer of the petitioners to a consideration for re-employment in the event management proposes to go for fresh employment. He has taken the Court to various provisions of the Act, in support of his above contention and also contends that there is no linkage between section 25B and section 25H of the Act as contended by the respondents. On the other hand, Mr. He has taken the Court to various provisions of the Act, in support of his above contention and also contends that there is no linkage between section 25B and section 25H of the Act as contended by the respondents. On the other hand, Mr. Pathak refers to the averments made in the affidavit and submits that since a finding of fact has been recorded by the learned Tribunal that petitioners had not completed 240 days of employment, they would not be entitled to the benefit of Section 25H. Submissions made have been considered. Also perused the materials of record. From the tone and tenor of the submissions made, it is evident that challenge to the impugned award has been given up by the petitioners. Only relief claimed by the petitioners is that notwithstanding their retrenchment, they should get an opportunity of re-employment as provided under section 25H of the Act in the event management proposes to go for fresh employment. Section 2 of the Act is the definition clause. As per section 2(OO), ‘retrenchment’ has been defined to mean termination by the employer of the service of a workmen for any reason otherwise then by punishment imposed by way of disciplinary action, but would not include voluntary retirement, retirement on superannuation, termination of service on expiry of contract and non-renewal of contract and termination of service on the ground of continued ill-health. Section 25F lays down the conditions precedent for retrenchment of workmen. It provides that no workmen employed in any industry, who has been in continuous service for not less than 1 year under any employment shall be retrenched by the employer until and unless the workmen has been given one months’ notice in writing indicating reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice having expired or the workmen being paid wages for the period of notice in lieu of notice and that the workmen at the time of retrenchment is paid retrenchment compensation as provided. Continuous service for not less than 1 year has been defined in section 25B. For computing continuous service interruption in service on account of sickness or authorized leave or on account of accident or strike not declared illegal or lock-out would not be included. Continuous service for not less than 1 year has been defined in section 25B. For computing continuous service interruption in service on account of sickness or authorized leave or on account of accident or strike not declared illegal or lock-out would not be included. However, a workmen employed below ground in a mine for not less than 190 days and in other cases 240 days would be construed to have rendered continuous service of one year. Section 25H, on which reliance has been placed by Mr. Dasgupta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, provides for re-employment of retrenched workmen. Section 25H reads as under: - “25H. 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.” A perusal of the aforesaid provision would go to show that where any workmen is retrenched and the employer proposes to take into his employment, any person, the employer shall 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. A careful reading of the aforesaid provision does not indicate any requirement of having one year of continuous service as provided under section 25F or 240 days of continuous service as mentioned in section 25B. Conditions mentioned in sections 25B and 25F have been inserted by the Legislature as a save guard to the workmen against retrenchment. Examining the provision of Section 25F of the Act, the Supreme Court in Pramod Jha Vs State of Bihar, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 619 held that underlying object of Section 25F is twofold. Firstly, a retrenched employee must have one month’s time available at his disposal to search for alternate employment, and so, either he should be given one month’s notice of the proposed termination or he should be paid wages for the notice period. Firstly, a retrenched employee must have one month’s time available at his disposal to search for alternate employment, and so, either he should be given one month’s notice of the proposed termination or he should be paid wages for the notice period. Secondly, the workman must be paid retrenchment compensation at the time of retrenchment, or before, so that once having been retrenched there should be no need for him to go to his employer demanding retrenchment compensation and the compensation so paid is not only a reward earned for his previous services rendered to the employer but is also a sustenance to the worker for the period which may be spent in searching for another employment. Retrenchment without complying with Section 25-F would be void ab initio. Such action would entitle the retrenched workman to a declaration for continuation in service with full back wages. On a careful analysis of the above provisions, this Court does not find any causal connection between sections 25B and 25F on the one hand and section 25H on the other hand. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents has also not been able to show any decision in support of his contention that for invoking section 25H, there must be compliance of sections 25B or 25F. On the contrary, the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India Vs. S Satyam, reported in (1996) 5 SCC 419 had posed the question as to whether the provision for re-employment of retrenched workmen made in Section 25 H should be confined only to the category of retrenched workmen covered by Section 25 F by restricting the meaning of retrenchment in Section 2 (OO) for this purpose. Examining this aspect, the Supreme Court held 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. Section 25 H speaks only of re-employment of “retrenched workmen”, the ordinary meaning of which must relate to the wide meaning of retrenchment given in Section 2 (OO). Section 25 F is enacted for the benefit of the retrenched workmen and there is no reason to restrict its ordinary meaning which promotes the object of the enactment. Section 25 F is enacted for the benefit of the retrenched workmen and there is no reason to restrict its ordinary meaning which promotes the object of the enactment. Accordingly, it was categorically held that Section 25 H applies to all cases of retrenchment and that there is no reason to restrict application of Section 25 H to only one category of retrenched workmen to whom Section 25 F applies. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a social justice legislation, which aims at bringing about harmony and cordial relationship between the management and the workmen to ensure that there is industrial peace resulting in enhanced industrial production. It is in the light of the above objective that provisions of the Act are required to be interpreted and understood. Having regard to the discussions made above, while not interfering with the impugned award dated 30.12.2009, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati in Ref. Case No.13(C)/1997, it is hereby directed that in the event respondent Nos. 1 & 2 propose to employ any person, case of the petitioners as retrenched workmen shall be considered for re-employment in terms of section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in which case, they shall have a preference over other claimants. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.