The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which mandates 'last come first go' principle while retrenching workmen, and the entitlement to reinstatement based on this provision.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the Honourable Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Chennai made in I.D.No.63/2002 on 08.12.2003, quash the same.

The relief sought by the petitioner in this writ petition is to call for the records of the Honourable Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Chennai made in I.D.No.63/2002 on 08.12.2003.

2. The facts of the case in a nutshell:

The first respondent was appointed directly as a Casual Labourer in the petitioner’s Laboratory w.e.f. 19.06.2000 without reference to the Employment Exchange and his appointment was periodically extended with break in service. His service was not extended beyond 31.01.2001, as there was no requirement of services of casual labour in the section, where he was posted. He served only for a total period of 174 days. The first respondent raised an industrial dispute before the Industrial Labour Commissioner (Central) by filing a Petition dated 04.09.2001. The petitioner replied by a letter dated 31.10.2001 that (1) The petitioner-s organisation is not an industry and it is sub-institution of Central Government under administrative control of Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and hence, Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable and that (2) All employees are governed by Central Service Rules. However, the dispute was referred to the second respondent/Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court. The Tribunal has passed an award dated 08.12.2003, directing re-instatement of first respondent with full backwages and benefits. Aggrieved by the said award dated 08.12.2003, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent was engaged as Daily Rated Casual Labourer for the period from 19.06.2000 to 30.06.2000 and on his engagement, he was paid at the rate of Rs.73/- per day for the days he worked as Daily Rated Casual Labourer. Subsequently, he was engaged for further period from 01.07.2000 to 31.07.2000, 01.08.2000 to 31.08.2000, 01.09.2000 to 05.09.2000, 18.09.2000 to 30.09.2000, 01.10.2000 to 31.10.2000, 01.11.2000 to 30.11.2000, 11.12.2000 to 31.12.2000 and finally for a further period from 01.01.2001 to 31.01.2001 and his engagement was not further extended by the petitioner and the first respondent has worked for only 174 days.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the letter dated 31.10.2001 in regard to the Industrial Dispute raised by the first respondent under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, wherein, it is stated that:

“I am to inform that as stated in the said letter this Laboratory is a sub-ordinate institution of the Central Government under the administrative control of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. All its employees are governed by the service rules as applicable to employees of other Central Government Departments and hence, this Laboratory is not an Industry and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not apply to this office.”

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further drew the attention of this Court to the appointment order issued to Shri R.Madhana Gopal, who was sponsored by the Employment Exchange (Employment Exchange Registration No.5599/94) and posted as Animal Attendant with a scale of pay of Rs.2550/- per month, with effect from 23.02.2001.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further drew the attention of this Court to ground C of the affidavit, wherein, it is stated that the appointment of Shri R.Madhanagopal as Casual Labourer was extended, as his services were required in the Section, where he was working. Moreover, he was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, whereas the first respondent was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. However, Shri R.Madhanagopal’s appointment as Casual Labourer too was not extended bey