The Orissa High Court has held that the principle of “Last Come First Go” cannot ordinarily be departed from by employers while retrenching labourers under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act).
While departing from the principle, it is a precondition that the employer has to record ‘reasons in writing’.
Back Ground of Case
The petitioner is a government organisation under the control of the Fishery and Animal Resources Development Department having its office in Bhubaneswar.
The opposite party nos. 1 to 7 (workmen) were appointed as Daily Labour Return (DLR) employees on different dates in 1994, 1995, and 1996. The workmen were that there was no complaint against any of them.
Even after that suddenly declined work on 21st July 2001 in violation of the ID Act despite putting in long years of service they were, without any prior intimation.
Mr Pravat Kumar Muduli, the Additional Government Advocate, relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai (2006) to argue that Section 25G of the ID Act, which introduced the rule of ‘last come first go’ is not ‘imperative in nature’.
Briefing about the Act
According to the Industrial Disputes Act act point concerning Section 25G, it was pointed out that the ‘last come first go’ principle was not adhered to by the petitioner instead the person junior to the workmen was retained in service whereas they were retrenched.
Also, both Sections 25F, as well as 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, were violative as it was contended that each of them had worked continuously for more than 240 days in the year before their retrenchment.
According to need, The stand of the petitioner-management was that the workmen were never regularly appointed but they were only casual labourers engaged in the farm on a daily wage basis.
Since the government decided to dispose of uneconomical animals, the requirement for casual labourers decreased.
They were distinguished by the principle of ‘last come first go’. Along with the written statement. The management enclosed a chart showing the number of days in respect of which each of the workmen were engaged from the date of their engagement till the date of the retrenchment.
Case Proceedings
While dismissing the writ petition by the employer (State), a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr S. Muralidhar and Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik observed-
- The fact that the workmen were engaged for more than 240 continuous days and had worked for more than 5 to 7 years on a continuous basis which the Management was unable to dispute factually.
- In fact, MW 1 supported the case of the workmen to that extent. The further fact that a person junior to the workmen had been retained while the workmen had been retrenched was also unable to be disputed by the Management.
Court Order
After referring to the decisions on the issue, the Labour Court concluded that the retention of juniors while retrenching opposite parties 1 to 7 by the management was illegal and unjustified.
Thus, held that the workmen were entitled to be reinstated in service “but without any back wages”. This decision was challenged by the State in the writ petition.
It was further observed therein that the said rule would be applicable when a workman belongs to a particular category of workmen.
An employer would, in terms thereof, be ordinarily required to retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category. However, “for reasons to be recorded, the employer may retrench any other workman.” With LiveLaw.in inputs
