The State of Punjab vs Jaspal Singh and Another

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—In this petition, a challenge was made to the award of the Labour Court, Patiala. 8.8.1980 whereby the Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the 1st. respondent workman into service with continuity of service and full back wages.

The 1st respondent was employed as a conductor on 12.9.1978. His services were terminated by an order dated 1.3.1979. The workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication.

It is the case of the workman that his juniors were continuing in service, while his services were terminated by the Management without following the provisions as contained in Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act''). There is no dispute that the order of termination does not contain any reasons. The only ground for discontinuing the services of the Ist respondent is that his services are no longer required. It is in the evidence of PW-2 Shri Amrit Lal, who is a Clerk working with the petitioner that a junior to the Ist respondent has been still in service. Thus, it is clear while retaining the services of the junior, the services of the Ist respondent have been terminated. This is clearly in violation of the principle of last come first go:

Learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, contended that in the order of appointment, it is clearly mentioned that the services of the Ist respondent can be terminated at any time without notice or assigning any reason and according to him this amounts to an agreement between the workman and the management and the services of the Ist respondent have been terminated by virtue of this agreement and in such a case the principle of ''last come first go'' does not apply. Learned DAG Punjab also relied upon a decision of this Court in Kashmira Singh v. Haryana State Electricity Board and Ors. 1976 LIC 348. But I am of the view that the said decision can be distinguished on facts. In that case there is a provision for giving one month notice before terminating the services of a workman and in lieu of the notice, payment of one month''s pay and allowance has been provided. That is not the case in the case on hand. Simply because in the order of appointment it is mentioned that the services of the workman can be terminated at any time, it does not necessarily mean that there is an agreement and because of that agreement the principle of ''Last come first go'' is not applicable. The agreement referred to in Section 25G of the Act is a specific agreement between the employer and the workman providing specifically that the last person to be employed need not be retrenched. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the decision relied upon by the learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has no application to the facts of the present case.

In this view of the matter, I do not find any ground warranting interference with the award passed by the Labour Court. The result is, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.