1 (1) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5628/2006 (Kalji & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) (2) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3771/2006[DR(J)] (State of Rajasthan v. Kalji & Ors.) Date of Order :: 8 th July, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Ravindra Singh, for the petitioners. Mr. A.S.Rathore, for the respondents. (In SBCWP No.5628/06) Mr. A.S.Rathore, for the petitioner. (In SBCWP No.3771/06[DR(J)] .... By the award dated 23.8.2004, learned Labour Court, Udaipur, while declaring termination of workmen Kalji and Ratanlal illegal, directed the employer to reinstate them in service with 20% total back wages. The employer has given challenge to the award aforesaid whereas the workmen are seeking a direction for implementation of the award dated 23.8.2004. The contention of counsel for the employer is that the Labour Court erred while holding that there was a violation of provisions of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”). As per counsel for the employer the workmen who were in employment were certainly junior than the workmen Kalji and Ratanlal, however, they were in service due to an award passed by the Labour Court, Udaipur, therefore, their 2 continuation in service cannot be subjected to the principle of first come last go. I do not find any substance in the argument advanced. It is the position admitted that the retrenchment of the workmen junior than the workman Kalji and Ratanlal was declared bad by the Labour Court being in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. The termination of the workmen Kalji and Ratanlal is also found bad by the Labour Court being in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F as well as 25-G of the Act of 1947. All the workmen retrenched form a one class and if an order of reinstatement has been passed regarding some of the employees, the employer should have extended the same treatment for others. It is always open for the employer to retrench the employees for just and valid reasons by making compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F/25-N of the Act of 1947, as the case may be, if desired. In the instant case too the appropriate course before the employer is to reinstate the workmen, services of whom were terminated in violation of the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Act of 1947 and a fresh exercise may be made for fresh retrenchment, if necessary by adhering the provisions of the Act of 1947. Learned counsel for the employer failed to point out any error in the finding 3 given by the Labour Court regarding non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. For the discussions made above, the petition for writ is having no merit and, therefore, no interference with the award impugned is warranted. The petition for writ preferred by the employer, therefore, is dismissed. The award impugned was made in the year 2004 and yet the same has not been complied with, hence while accepting the writ petition preferred by the workmen the employer is directed to make compliance of the award within a period of three months from today. No order to costs. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.