A workman retrenched without complying with the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not possess a legal right of reinstatement enforceable as such in a court of law.

1. - The petitioner, Tejbhan Singh, was appointed by the Assistant Engineer, Karauli, as a Work charged survey munshi, on Panchana Irrigation Project with headquarters at Karauli, vide office order, Ex. R/ l , dated, September 28, 1970. The appointment which was made in the first instance to last till February 28, 1971, appears to have been extended thereafter from time to time till the date on which the petitioner was retrenched. On August 30, 1974, the Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Sawai Madhopur (respondent 3 herein) passed on order, Ex. R/2, retrenching the petitioner in these terms :

In compliance with letter, DLC 5/5053 dated, 1.8.1974, from the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle Jaipur, you will be retrenched from 30-9-1974 because survey munshi is no longer required in this division. You may treat this letter as the requisite one month's notice under rule 26(2), Rajasthan P.W.D.(B & R) including Gardens, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Departments, Work- charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 and section 25-F, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The petitioner has challenged the validity of the aforesaid order of retrenchment and filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned order and for a direction to the State of Rajasthan, Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Rajasthan, the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Jaipur, and the Executive Engineer, Irrigation. Construction Division, Sawai Madhopur (respondents 1,2,3 and 4 respectively) to reinstate the petitioner in service as a survey munshi with back wages and all other benefits flowing from such reinstatement.

2. The petitioner's case is that the retrenchment in question was made in clear violation of the instructions of the Chief Engineer, issued vide his office order (Ex. I) dated, May 1, 1972, directing the subordinate authorities in the Irrigation Department not to retrench any member of the work-charged staff, who had completed two years continuous service, pending the finalisation of the strength of such staff. His further case is that being the senior most munshi he was not liable to be retrenched unless those junior to him were also found to be surplus and thus retrenched. He has in this connection referred to two seniority lists (Schedule A and Schedule B to the petition) of the work-charged staff, prepared by the Executive Engineer concerned, and pleaded that among 8 munshis he ranked at No. 1 in the seniority list, Schedule A and at No. 2 among 7 munshis as per list, Schedule B. His grievance is that the Executive Engineer in passing the impugned order of retrenchment, violated the principle of "last come first go" enacted in section 25-G, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, wtucn will, hereinafter, be referred to as the Act.

3. The petitioner also averred that the authorities concerned were annoyed with him on account of his activities of as a trade union leader. He mentioned in this context that he was at one time the Secretary, and thereafter the President of the Sawai Madhopur District Irrigation and Construction Department Karam chari Sangh. As an instance of the alleged annoyance of the employer, he referred to what he described as the refusal of the Assistant Engineer to pay his wages and his recourse to the Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act to enforce the recovery of unpaid wages. He further complained that the authorities concerned ordered his transfer from Karauli to Mohanpura as a measure of harassment on July 17, 1974. According to him, he was not relieved by the Assistant Engineer from his charge at Karauli and at the same time he was not allowed to mark his attendance in the register at Karauli.

4. The petitioner further pleaded that some other work charged officials had been retrenched along with him and that while their retrenchment was withdrawn. vide order (Ex. 6), dated, September 29, 1974, his retrenchment was not withdrawn. He thus complained of arbitr