Violation of the mandatory requirement of Rule 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957, entitles the aggrieved workman to reinstatement with all consequential benefits and back wages.

1. - In this writ petition the petitioner has raised the pure questions of law pertaining to the interpretation of Rule 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes Rules (for short 'the Rules') and Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (heareinafter to be referred as 'the Act'). The facts giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner who is an ex-employee of respondent No. 1 viz. Rajasthan Rajya Pathya Pustak Mandal, was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on daily wage basis on 1-7-77. In lieu of appointment the petitioner was issued a Certificate (Annex-1) dated 12th March, 1982, by the Management of respondent No. 1 and a perusal of the said certificate reveals that the appointment was for a short duration i.e. for the period from 1-7-77 to 31-8-77 and from 1-5-78 to 21-8-78.It has been contended in the writ petition that the aforesaid period was extended from time to time by the respondents till the termination of the services of the petitioner on 30th June, 1986.

2. It is further contended in the writ petition that the petitioner was performing his duties quite satisfactorily during all this period under the control of respondent No. 3 without having any blemish whatsoever during his entire tenure of service. A few certificates of experience were also issued in lieu of good services rendered by the petitioner to the management i.e. respondent No. 3 vide Annex-1 to 4, in this regard. It is further contended that since 1st July, 1977, the petitioner continuously discharged his duties without any kind of break on the post of LDC till his verbal termination from service in June, 1986 by respondent No. 3 and that too without assigning any reason. The petitioner had immediately protested in this matter by challenging his illegal termination but all to no avail. The petitioner was left with no alternative but to move this Court by filing the present writ petition in the year 1989 since he became aware on 10th January, 1989 that subsequent to his termination from service number of persons have been appointed on daily-wage basis, in the same capacity of LDC on which the petitioner performed his duties, by the respondent-Management in violation of the statutory provisions of Rule 77 and 78 of the Rules. The details of persons who were appointed after the termination of the services of the petitioner have been indicated in para 8 of the writ petition from which it is apparent that 37 persons were appointed during the period from June, 1986 to August, 1989 and the said individuals are still continuing in service with the respondents.

3. It is next contended on behalf of the petitioner that the retrenchment of the petitioner was effected without giving him one month's notice or wages in lieu of the notice period as contemplated by the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act since the petitioner had completed about 9 years of continuous service and he was consequently entitled to the protection of Section 25-F of the Act. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that prior to effecting the retrenchment of the petitioner, no seniority list was published in violation of Rule 76 to 78 of the Rules which envisage the statutory requirement to do so on the principle of 'last come first go'. Having failed to get any relief from the Management, the petitioner had served a notice for demand of justice dated 13th February, 1989 to the respondent-Management, which was served on the respondents vide Annex-6.

4. It will be pertinent to refer to the statutory provisions of Rule 77 and 78 (1) of the Rules which provide as under:

"77. Maintenance of seniority list of workmen-The employer shall prepare a list of all workmen in the particular category from which retrenchment is contemplated arranged according to the seniority of their service in that category and cause a copy thereof to be pasted on a notice board in a conspicuous place in the premis