JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus RAM SAHAI AND ANR .

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 95 · Decided: 31-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
v. 
RAM SAHAI AND ANR . 
OCTOBER 31, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] 
Labour laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
Sections 25G and 25H-Rule of 'last come first go '-Termination of 
daily wage earner who had not been in one year continuous service-Order 
of reinstatement with full back wages by Labour Court on the ground that 
termination was in violation of Sections 25G and 25H-Correctness of-
Held, Not .-:orrect as no case made out that when his services were terminated, 
any person who was junior to him in the same category, had been retained-
ln the interest of justice, compensation of Rs. 7 5, 000 awarded in place of re-
instatement-Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958-Ru:e 77. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Section 25G-Rule of 'last come first go '-Applicability of-Discussed 
Respondent-workman was appointed on daily wage basis. He had not been E 
in one year continuous service. On termination of his servkes, he raised 
industrial dispute. Labour Court found that the appellant-employer had failed 
to comply with the requirements contained in Sections 25G and 25H of 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 r/w Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 
and therefore set aside the order of termination and directed reinstatement 
with full back wages. Appellant-employer unsuccessfully filed writ petition F 
before High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. As Respondent was appointed on daily wages and he has not 
completed 240 days, his retrenchment by Appellant did not require compliance G 
of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
199-E\ 
1.2. Section 25G introduces the rule of 'last come first go'. It is not a 
rule which is imperative in nature. The said rule would be 1pplicable when a 
95 
H 
96 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A workman belongs to a particular category of workman. 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. Section 25H 
provides for re-employment of retrenched workman, which will apply in case 
where the employer proposes to take into employment any person, an 
B opportunity has to be given to him to offer himself for r~-employment The 
State of Rajasthan has framed Rules known as Rajasthan Industrial Disputes 
Rules, 1958. Rule 77 thereof prescribes the procedure in which seniority 
list in the particular category of workman was to be maintained. Rule 78 
postulates re-employment of retrenched workman. From the scheme of the 
C Act and the Rules framed, it appears that Section 25F on the one hand and 
Sections 25G and 25H were enacted to meet situations of different kind. 
199-F-H; 100-A-BJ 
2. Before the Labour Court, muster rolls were prodi;ced by Appellant. 
It was noticed that in July, 1985 Respondent had worked regularly. He did 
D not work in August, 1985. He worked for 25 days in September, 1985, 
whereas, again in October, 1985 he did not work at all. He, however, worked 
regularly in November and December, 1985. But in January, 1986 he worked 
only for 9 days. Again in February, 1986 he did Rot-work at all. Yet again, in 
March, April, May and June of 1986, he worked for 26 day'>, 26 days, 27·days 
E and 25 days respectively. In the months of July, August, September and 
October of 1986 he did not work at all. Thereafter, in November, 1986, he 
worked for 27 days. He was, therefore, not in continuous servir.e. He never 
made any complaint prior to raising any indastrial dispute t~at Appellant had 
not complied with the provisions of Section 25G or Sectic>n 25H of the Act 
F 
1100-E-F; 101-B) 
3. It ;~ one thing to.say that the workman is retrenched from his 
services, but, a daily wager who keeps on coming and going and even has not 
taken or been given any work on any day on each month, it was not necessary, 
as had been opined by the Labour c;ourt, to initiate a departmental proceeding 
against him for his absence from duty. It would have been proper in the 
G aforementioned circumstances for the Labour Court to delve deep into the 
said question as to whether Appellant deliberately and intentionally did not 
allow him to _join in his duties or Respondent himself did not continue to work 
since 1.7.1987. pOI-D-E) 
4.1. The continuous work in terms of Section 25B of the Act is not 
H nece:;o.ary in 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.