JUDGMENT
H.D. Patel, J.
1. The petitioner-Municipal Council, Wardha served a notice dated 3rd August, 1981 terminating the services of the respondent-employee with effect from 5th September, 1981. The respondent Smt. Shantabai was in employment of the Municipal Council as a peon. The respondent challenged the termination by instituting a complaint before the Industrial Court, Nagpur and also obtained an ex parte stay of the said order of termination. This ex parte order was, however, vacated by the Industrial Court, Nagpur on 20th April, 1982 and thereafter on 22nd April, 1982 the respondent was removed from the service. Whereupon the respondent filed a complaint before the Labour Court, Nagpur alleging that the termination of the services of the respondent were illegal and it amounts to unfair labour practices falling under Item No. 1(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’. The respondent alleged in the complaint that while terminating her services, the employees junior to the respondent were continued in the employment and her removal from services was by way of victimisation for having participated in a Hunger Strike. The respondent claimed a declaration that the Municipal Council, Wardha had engaged in unfair labour practices and accordingly sought a direction for being reinstated in service and payment of full back wages.
2. The petitioner-Municipal Council resisted the complaint inter alia contending that the appointment of the respondent was not in accordance with the Maharashtra Municipalities Act inasmuch as no sanction was obtained for the post she was holding. It was also the defence of the petitioner-Municipal Council that on account of surplus staff having been appointed by the President of the Municipal Council, Wardha without obtaining proper sanction, the Municipal Council was superseded by the Government and the Administrator was appointed who retrenched the staff which was found to be surplus and also without sanction. It was also submitted that while effecting retrenchment, principle of ‘last come, first go’ was strictly adhered to. The petitioner Municipal Council hence denied having victimised the respondent or having indulged in unfair labour practices.
3. The Labour Court, Nagpur by his order dated 29th October, 1984 found that the order of termination was not in accordance with the provisions of sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Central Act’, and accordingly declared the termination of the services of the respondent by way of unfair labour practices. The respondent was also directed to be reinstated in service with payment of full back wages from the date of her actual removal. This order was challenged by the petitioner-Municipal Council in revision application filed before the Industrial Court, Nagpur, who, after hearing the parties, found that there was no contravention of section 25-F of the Central Act but maintained the order in so far as section 25-G of the Act was concerned. In view of this finding the revision filed by the petitioner-Municipal Council came to be dismissed. Both these orders are hence impugned by the petitioner-Municipal Council in this petition.
4. The only point to be decided is whether the petitioner-Municipal Council had contravened the provisions of section 25-G of the Central Act which prescribe the procedure for retrenchment. It provides that where any workman in any establishment is to be retrenched and who belongs to a particular category of workman in that establishment, then in the absence of any agreement between employer and the workmen in this behalf, the employer shall, ordinarily retrench the workman who was last person to be employed in that category, unless for the reasons to be recorded, the employer retrenches any other workman. In other words, the section gives legislative recognition to the well recognised principle of retrenchment in industrial law and which is either ‘first come, last go’ or ‘last come, first go’. In order to achieve this principle, the law enjoins upon the employer to prepare a seniority list in accordance with the instructions contained in Rule 81 of the Central Act. It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in 1984 Labour and Industrial Cases 445 Navbharat Hindi Daily, Nagpur v. Navbharat Shramik Sangha and another, that Rule 81 casts an obligation on the employer to prepare a seniority list and also strictly comply with the conditions laid down therein. Having examined the requirement of the law what remains to be determined is whether the petitioner-Municipal Council have complied with the procedure that is prescribed before effecting the retrenchment.
5. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner-Municipal Council that they prepared the seniority list, one for non-sanctioned staff and the other for the sanctioned staff. It was also submitted that the preparation of such a separate list was necessary since the two categories were different. Those belonging to the sanctioned staff was stated to be superior as against non-sanctioned staff. This argument was canvassed before me clearly indicates that the petitioner-Municipal Council has given a complete go by to the principle of ‘first come, last go’ or ‘last come, first go’. A common seniority list of persons working in the category of Peon is only envisaged by the provisions referred to above. Admittedly, this has not been done. There being a clear contravention of the provisions of section 25-G, the retrenchment of the respondent from service can never be sustained. No other question arises for my determination in this petition.
6. In the result the petition is devoid of any substance and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.