THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.6198 OF 2004 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings No.APSCCL/ID Matters/OA 2336/01/270/3 dated 23.3.2004 dispensing the services of the petitioner, who is a woman mazdoor in the office of 2nd respondent – Executive Engineer (O & M) Division Tekulapaly, Khammam, with effect from 25.3.2004, as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the rules made thereunder and also in violation of the judgment of this court in W.P.No.2625 of 1995 dated 24.8.1999 and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits. 3. The case of the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as woman mazdoor on daily wage basis in the defunct A. P. State Construction Corporation Limited (NSLC) unit Khammam with effect from 1.5.1977 and his services were continued without any break in service up to 6.8.1979. As the services of the petitioner were illegal terminated on 6.8.1979 without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, she raised industrial dispute in I.D.No.229/1990 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Warangal. The Labour court by award dated 26.5.1994, set aside the order of termination and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service by absorbing in any Government Corporation with continuity of service and without back wages. The Tribunal directed that the petitioner is entitled for back wages from the date of her approaching the Tribunal. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, the respondents filed writ petition before this court in W.P.No.2625/1995 and this court disposed of the writ petition and while confirming the reinstatement and continuity of service, set aside the award in respect of back wages. In compliance of the orders of this court in W.P.No.2625/1995, the respondents issued G.O.Ms.No.151 dated 6.11.2000 reinstating the petitioner as NMR and placed at serial no.6 in the said G.O. In the said G.O. it is made clear to remove the individuals as per the provisions of the I.D. Act. Challenging the said clause, the petitioner filed O.A.No.2336/2001 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and by interim order dated 19.4.2001, the Tribunal directed the respondents not to terminate the petitioner pending the disposal of O.A. The grievance of the petitioner is that contrary to the orders of the Tribunal, the respondents issued the impugned order terminating her service, holding that the petitioner is surplus. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents without following the seniority list prepared by them, terminated her service, while continuing her juniors viz., Smt. R.Nagamma, appointed on 6.9.1982, Ms.R.Rajeshwari, appointed on 1.3.1983, Ms.S.K.Janin Bee appointed on 14.3.1983, Ms. T.Laxmi appointed on 1.5.1983 and Ms.T.Adamma, appointed on 17.5.1983 as woman mazdoors. The further case of the petitioners is that the respondents have regularized the services of the said five individuals in the year 1987. As the termination of the petitioner is in violation of Section 25-G of the Act, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The 2nd respondent – Executive Engineer filed counter affidavit and stated inter alia that as there is no work available either to engage the petitioner or the persons who are reinstated along with the petitioner under G.O.Ms.No.151, they were retrenched. It is stated that the O.A.No.2336/2001 filed by the petitioner is pending and one of the mazdoor who was appointed under G.O.Ms.No.151 by name M.Ramakoteswara Rao and others filed O.A.No.352/2001 before the Tribunal on the similar lines and the same was dismissed on 12.3.2003. It is further stated that the persons who are covered under G.O.Ms.No.151 are not continuing except the petitioner till 24.3.2004. Therefore, the 3rd respondent - Superintending Engineer directed the 2nd respondent – Executive Engineer to retrench the petitioner, as O.A.No.362/2001 was dismissed and also as there is no work. In view of the said directions, the services of the petitioner was retrenched with effect from 25.3.2004 and wags in lieu of one month notice and compensation was also paid and the same was also acknowledged by the petitioner. It is also stated that the five individuals referred to by the petitioner, who are said to be juniors to the petitioners, are not at all working under the control of the 2nd respondent. With these averments, the writ petition was sought to be dismissed. 5. The petitioner filed reply and reiterated that the five individuals referred to in the writ petition are working and as the retrenchment is made in violation of the provisions of the I.D. Act, sought for setting aside the impugned order and accord all the consequential benefits on par with the juniors who are continuing in service. 6. This court while admitting the writ petition on 25.1.2004 did not grant any interim direction. 7. From the above material on record the undisputed facts are that the petitioner was appointed on 1.5.1977 as woman mazdoor in the respondent corporation and when her services were terminated, she raised I.D.No.229/1990 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal and by award dated 26.5.1994, the Tribunal set aside the order of termination and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service by absorbing in any Government Corporation with continuity of service and the Tribunal also granted back wages. The award of the Tribunal with regard to reinstatement with continuity of service was confirmed by this court in W.P.No.2625/1995 dated 29.8.2001 and only the back wages are denied. Pursuant to the orders of this court, the respondents issued G.O.Ms.No.151 dated 6.11.2000 and the petitioner was reinstated into service. In the said G.O., a condition was put to remove the petitioner as per the provisions of the I.D. Act. Challenging the said clause, the petitioner filed O.A.No.2336/2001 on the file of A. P. Administrative Tribunal and the same is pending 8. Now the main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents, in violation of Section 25-G i.e., the principle of ‘last come first go’ and ‘first come last go’, have retrenched her services and the respondents are continuing the services of her juniors and in the writ affidavit she has mentioned the names, , Smt. R.Nagamma, appointed on 6.9.1982, Ms.R.Rajeshwari, appointed on 1.3.1983, Ms.S.K.Janin Bee appointd on 14.3.1983, Ms. T.Laxmi appointed on 1.5.1983 and Ms.T.Adamma, appointed on 17.5.1983 as woman mazdoors. The further case of the petitioners is that the respondents have regularized the services of the said five individuals in the year 1987. As the termination of the petitioner is in violation of Section 25-G of the Act, the present writ petition is filed. 9. In the counter filed by the 2nd respondents it is stated that no juniors named by the petitioners are working under his control. Along with the writ petition the petitioner also filed proceedings No.AB/A4/apscc. Ltd/90/584 dated 29.11.1990 issued by the Superintending engineer, regularization the NMRS of APSCC Ltd., and conversion of the said workmen into worked charged establishment. A perusal of the said proceedings would disclose that Smt. R.Nagamma, Smt. Taxmi and Smt. B.Rajeswarai, who were engaged on daily wages on 6.9.1982, 1.5.1983 and 1.3.1983 respectively, were regularized as they completed five years of service and satisfied the condition laid down in G.O.Ms.No.56, I and CAD(PW) D dated 28.2.1989. In the present case, as already noted above, the petitioner was engaged on NMR basis on 1.5.1977 i.e., much prior to the above said three individuals, whose services were regularized and conversion is made into work charged establishment. Though the petitioner was terminated on 6.8.1979, the said termination was set aside by the Labour Court in I.D.No.229/1990 and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and absorb in any Government Corporation with continuity of service. This direction of the Tribunal, has attained finality. 10. At this juncture it is necessary to note Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 79 of the A.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. They are extracted as under for ready reference: 25-G Procedure for retrenchment:- Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman. Rule 79. Maintenance of seniority list of workmen:- The employer shall prepare a list of all workmen in the particular category from which retrenchment is contemplated, arrange according to the seniority of their service in that category and cause a copy thereof to be posted on a notice board in a conspicuous place in the premises of the industrial establishment at least seven days before the actual date of retrenchment. 11. From a reading of the above provisions relating to procedure for retrenchment and maintenance of seniority list of workmen, it is clear that while retrenching, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, such retrenchment shall start from the last person employed in that establishment in that particular category and for the reasons to be recorded, the employer can retrench any other workman than the last person employed. In other words, if there an agreement between the employer or employee in that behalf or for the reasons to be recorded, the employer can retrench any other workman than the last person. The employer shall prepare a list of all workmen in the particular category from which retrenchment is contemplated and retrench as per the seniority, ie., as per the seniority list served on the workmen, the retrenchment shall start from the last person employed in that particular category of the industrial establishment. 12. In the present case, there is no material placed by the respondents that any seniority list has been prepared before retrenching and the principle of ‘last come first go’ and ‘first come last go’ stipulated under Section 25-G of the Act has been followed. Moreover, the case of the petitioner is that the juniors to the petitioners are being continued and per the proceedings of the Superintending Engineer, the services of the juniors to the petitioner, were regularized and also conversion is made into work charged establishment. 13. In view of the above circumstances, the impugned order which is passed in violation of the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1974 deserves to be interfered with by this court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. Accordingly for the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and without back wages and regularize her on par with her juniors whose services were regularized and conversion is given into work charged establishment and accordingly her scale of pay shall be fixed in the respective grade. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. AVS ---------------------------- 01—06—2010