JUDGMENT
Permod Kohli, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the Award dated May 8, 1997 in Reference Case No. 13/1993, whereby the Labour Court. Ranchi set aside the termination /retrenchment of the two workmen and directed their reinstatement with full back wages and all consequential benefits.
2. The Management has challenged the Award primarily on the ground that the findings arrived at by the Labour Court are not based on the records as produced. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that such a finding amounts to perversity and the writ Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can examine the validity of the Award.
3. It is admitted case of the parties that the workmen were working in the Company’s workshop at Ranchi. In all they are 60 workmen of different categories, out of which 16 workmen were retrenched after complying with the provisions of Sections 25F, 25G, and 25H as also the Rules 78 and 79 of Industrial Disputes Bihar Rules. Out of 16 retrenched workmen, 3 raised industrial dispute, for which reference was made by the appropriate Government on October 28, 1993 to the Labour Court, Ranchi for adjudication/answer. During pendency of the reference proceedings, one of the workmen entered into a settlement and opted out of the reference. Reference, however, continued, as far two workmen are concerned. Labour Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed following five questions for determination:
(i) Whether Section 25N is applicable and complied?
(ii) Whether Section 25F of the I.D., Act complied?
(iii) Whether Section 25G and 25H of the I.D. Act and Rules 78 and 79 of the Industrial Disputes Bihar Rules complied?
(iv) Whether retrenchment of the concerned workmen is proper and justified?
(v) Whether the concerned workmen are entitled to any relief?
As far the question Nos. (i) and (ii) are concerned, they were answered in favour of the Management i.e. the petitioner. Labour Court, however, returned findings against the Management in respect to question Nos. (iii) to (v). As far the compliance of Rules 78 and 79 of the Industrial Disputes Bihar Rules are concerned, the Management produced its witness M.W.2 and also placed on record a copy of the seniority list of the workmen prepared and published one week before the date of retrenchment. This witness stated before the Labour Court that the list was pasted on the Notice Board in compliance of the provisions of Rules 78 and 79 of the above Rules. In cross-examination, the witness stated that he is not possessed of any evidence to show that the list was pasted on the Notice Board. It is this part of the evidence of the Management witness that the Labour Court has stated in its finding that there is no absolute evidence to show that, the seniority list was pasted on the Notice Board. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the witness in examination-in-chief categorically stated about the pasting on the Notice Board seniority list of the workmen but the Labour Court wanted to prove by evidence regarding this fact. From the finding it appears that the workmen did not produce any evidence in rebuttal to this fact and the witness rightly made a statement that there cannot be any evidence of pasting except the statement. It is further contended that the copy of the seniority list was also forwarded to the appropriate Government and the Conciliation Officer as required under Rule 78 of the Industrial Disputes Bihar Rules and thus Management had fully complied with the provisions of Rules 78 and 79 of Industrial Disputes Bihar Rules. Finding of the Labour Court that there is no evidence appears to be totally based on misreading of evidence of M.W.2 and is out of context. Other findings of the Labour Court are in respect to the seniority list. The Management produced category wise seniority list of different categories of workmen working in Ranchi workshop which was prepared one week before the date of retrenchment i.e. April 26, 1993. From the seniority list, it appears that two workmen, namely, Ramesh Ch. Singh and Pramod Kr. Singh were appointed as Jr. Store Clerk on the same date. Pramod Kr. Singh was a direct recruit whereas the petitioner was a promotee from Store Helper and one S.N. Sharma was the only person working as Store Assistant. Both Ramesh Ch. Singh and Pramod Kr. Singh from category of Jr. Store Clerk were retrenched. Similarly S.N. Sharma, the only workman in category of Store Assistant, was also retrenched. Pramod Kr. Singh however did not challenge his retrenchment. Another seniority list was produced by the workmen which is dated April 13, 1988. In this seniority list, S.N. Sharma stands at Sl. No. 4, Ramesh Ch. Singh at Sl. No. 5 and they are also shown as Store Assistant and Junior Store Clerk respectively. It is seen that designation of these workmen in both the seniority lists is the same. This seniority list has not been prepared category, wise and was prepared about 7 years before the date of retrenchment. The Labour Court relied upon this seniority list of 1988 which had been prepared almost 7 years before the date of retrenchment and was not category wise seniority list to apply the principle of last come first go enshrined under Section 25G and completely ignored the seniority list which was prepared at the time of retrenchment. Findings of the Labour Court are, thus, based upon misconstruction of the seniority list. The finding of the Labour Court that there has been violation of Section 25G i.e., the principle of “last come first go” is incorrect on the face of it. The Labour Court also did not agree with the statement of the Management that the Company was facing slump in business in the State of Bihar and conditions of the workshop worsened requiring retrenchment. The Labour Court held that the Company has failed to produce the Cash Book, Job Register as also the Bank Register. I fail to understand as to how these documents were relevant for proving whether the Company was facing slump or not. This finding is totally irrelevant, it is not in dispute that the Management can retrench workmen by adopting the procedure prescribed under law. From the documents placed on record, it is evident that there is sufficient material on record to indicate that the Company’s position in the State of Bihar was not happy. The Management also served notice and pasted the seniority list for the purposes of retrenchment in compliance of the provisions of Rules 78 and 79 of Industrial Disputes Bihar Rules and thus retrenchment of the workmen cannot be said to be in violation of provisions of law. The Labour Court has completely ignored the relevant facts on record and returned its finding on misreading and misconstruction of the material on record warranting interference by this Court.
4. In view of the above circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside the impugned Award dated May 8, 1997.