IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.3166 of 2009. Date of Decision: 7.12.2010. Amit Kumar …Petitioner Versus. State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Petitioner(s): Mr.P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl.A.G. for respondents. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) 1. The petitioner issued a demand notice that his juniors have been retained in service whereas his services have been terminated in violation of Section 25-G & 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He prayed that the termination of his services were illegal. 2. The Labour Commissioner, vide the impugned order dated 29.8.2007, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not completed 240 days in the 12 months preceding his termination and therefore found no justification for making a reference to the Labour Court. 3. In my view the Labour Commissioner totally exceeded his jurisdiction while passing such an order. The 2 Labour Commissioner is not required to go into the merits of the case. Section 25-G of the Act lays down the principles of last come first go in case the services of an employee have to be retrenched. Section 25-H provides that where services of any person are to be retrenched and the employer decides to employee certain persons then preference must be given to the already retrenched person over other persons. There is no condition prescribed in Sections 25-G & H that the workman should have completed 240 days. All that the workman is required to show is that the persons who joined after him have been retained in service. This was not a question the Labour Commissioner was to decide but it was for the Labour Court to decide whether there is violation of the provisions of Section 25-G & H. 4. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and the State is directed to make a reference to the Labour Court within two months from today. It is made clear that any observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding this petition and nothing stated herein shall affect the rights and contentions of the parties before the Labour Court. No costs. December 7, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) PV Judge.