Analyzing Statement I: Retrenchment and Section 25-H

Statement (I) asserts that "Only a 'retrenched' workman can claim benefit under section 25-H".

Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, addresses the right of preferential re-employment for workmen whose services have been dispensed with by the employer. The Act defines 'retrenchment' in Section 2(oo) as the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, except as a punishment inflicted through disciplinary action.

The key element in Statement (I) is the word "Only", which implies exclusivity. While Section 25-H clearly grants this benefit to 'retrenched' workmen, the statement suggests that no other category of workman can claim such a benefit under this specific section.

However, the scope of "services have been dispensed with" might be interpreted more broadly than a narrow definition of 'retrenchment'. If there are circumstances where workmen are 'dispensed with' for reasons other than disciplinary actions, but these reasons are not strictly classified as 'retrenchment' (for example, termination due to the closure of a specific business unit, distinct from general workforce redundancy), and yet Section 25-H is applicable, then the statement "Only a 'retrenched' workman" would be inaccurate.

Furthermore, even if the legal definition of 'retrenchment' is broad, the precise usage of the term "'retrenched' workman" in the statement could lead to its falsity if Section 25-H applies to a wider set of 'dispensed with' workmen beyond those strictly labelled as 'retrenched'.

Therefore, Statement (I) is considered false due to the restrictive nature of the word "Only", suggesting potential coverage under Section 25-H for workmen whose situations might fall outside a very specific interpretation of 'retrenchment' but are still covered by the broader condition of services being 'dispensed with' (and not for disciplinary reasons).

Analyzing Statement II: Preferential Re-employment Rights

Statement (II) claims that "A dismissed, discharged or a superannuated workman can claim for preferential re-employment".

Let's examine each category mentioned:

• Discharged Workmen: When a workman is discharged due to reasons such as redundancy, surplus labour, or the closure of the employer's business, this is generally classified as 'retrenchment' under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, these discharged workmen are indeed entitled to claim preferential re-employment benefits as stipulated in Section 25-H.
• Dismissed Workmen: Dismissal typically arises from disciplinary proceedings initiated due to alleged misconduct. Since Section 2(oo) explicitly excludes terminations that are punishments for disciplinary action from the definition of 'retrenchment', dismissed workmen usually do not qualify for preferential re-employment under Section 25-H. However, the statement does not limit the claim solely to Section 25-H. In scenarios involving wrongful dismissal, or where specific labour laws or company policies are in place, a dismissed workman might possess grounds to claim preferential re-employment, particularly if the dismissal is later invalidated or reconsidered. The truthfulness of Statement II hinges on the existence of such potential rights in broader employment contexts.
• Superannuated Workmen: Superannuation signifies retirement, typically upon reaching a pre-defined age limit. This represents a normal cessation of employment, distinct from termination initiated by the employer for reasons like retrenchment or misconduct. Section 25-H does not directly extend its provisions to superannuated employees. Nevertheless, the statement asserts a right to "preferential re-employment". Many organizations recognize the value of experience and may offer re-engagement opportunities to their retired employees, granting them preference, especially for specific roles. Such preference might stem from internal company policies or specific employment agreements, making the statement potentially true in a wider sense of employment opportunities.

Considering that 'discharged' workmen (in cases of retrenchment) are covered by Section 25-H, and acknowledging that potential rights for preferential re-employment may exist for 'dismissed' and 'superannuated' workmen through avenues beyond Section 25-H, Statement (II) is considered true.

Conclusion

Based on the detailed analysis, Statement (I) is determined to be false, while Statement (II) is found to be true.

Therefore, the most appropriate answer is that Statement I is false but Statement II is true.