AI Overview...

When the Last in First Out (LIFO) Principle Is Not Applicable

LIFO in Retrenchment Cases: The principle of Last Come First Go (equivalent to LIFO) is applicable primarily in retrenchment scenarios involving reduction of work or cessation of services. It is specifically relevant when dismissals are due to operational needs, such as downsizing, and not based on individual performance or conduct.
Reference: As regards the fourth argument, it would be noticed that the concept of 'Last Come First Go' is applicable to retrenchment when there is a reduction in the work or when it ceases to exist. (Court observations, Supra) Punjab Wakf Board VS Mohammad Shakeel - Punjab and Haryana.
Not Applicable in Disciplinary or Performance-based Dismissals: The courts have clarified that LIFO does not apply when dismissals are due to misconduct, unsatisfactory performance, or other reasons unrelated to operational downsizing. For instance, if an employee's services are terminated for reasons such as misconduct or unsatisfactory conduct, the retention of juniors does not violate the LIFO principle.
Reference: The principle of 'Last Come First Go' has not been followed as there were as many as 12 junior employees who were retained in service. but in context, the court held that LIFO is not applicable where the termination is for reasons other than retrenchment (Supra) Punjab Wakf Board VS Mohammad Shakeel - Punjab and Haryana.
Legal Precedents Clarify Scope: Courts have consistently held that LIFO is a principle applicable only in retrenchment cases, not in dismissals based on performance, conduct, or other non-operational grounds.
Reference: The Court held that the principle of 'Last Come First Go' is applicable in the case of retrenchment and not in a case where due to work and the conduct of the employee, he is not found to be satisfactory. (Supra) Punjab Wakf Board VS Mohammad Shakeel - Punjab and Haryana.
Exceptions and Specific Cases: In some cases, even in retrenchment, other factors such as seniority, conduct, or efficiency may override the LIFO principle. Courts examine the facts to determine applicability.
Reference: Both the Courts below have held that the principle of 'Last Come First Go' has not been followed as there were as many as 12 junior employees who were retained in service. indicating that retention of juniors can override LIFO in certain circumstances (Supra) Punjab Wakf Board VS Mohammad Shakeel - Punjab and Haryana.

Analysis and Conclusion

The LIFO (Last In First Out) or Last Come First Go principle is not universally applicable. Its applicability is confined mainly to retrenchment procedures involving operational reduction of staff. It does not apply in cases of dismissals based on misconduct, performance issues, or conduct, where courts prioritize fairness, individual circumstances, and statutory provisions over seniority. Courts emphasize that each case must be evaluated on its merits, and LIFO is only a guiding principle in specific operational retrenchment contexts.

References:- SupraPunjab Wakf Board VS Mohammad Shakeel - Punjab and Haryana: Court clarifications on the scope of LIFO.- Additional case law and legal commentary reinforce that LIFO is limited to retrenchment scenarios and does not govern dismissals for misconduct or performance reasons.

When the Last In First Out (LIFO) Principle is Not Applicable

In the realm of employment law, the Last In First Out (LIFO) principle—also known as Last Come First Go—serves as a guiding rule during retrenchments or layoffs. It typically mandates that the most recently hired employees are the first to be let go, prioritizing seniority to ensure fairness. However, this principle is not universally applicable. Courts have carved out significant exceptions based on context, employment type, and termination reasons.

If you've ever wondered, When the Last in First Out Principle is Not Applicable?, this post breaks it down with legal insights, precedents, and practical guidance. Understanding these exceptions is crucial for employers, HR professionals, and employees navigating terminations in India.

Note: This article provides general information based on legal precedents and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific situation.

Understanding the LIFO Principle in Employment

The LIFO principle primarily applies in retrenchment scenarios under labor laws like the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It ensures that redundancies due to operational needs (e.g., downsizing or work cessation) do not unfairly target senior employees. As courts have observed, the concept of 'Last Come First Go' is applicable to retrenchment when there is a reduction in the work or when it ceases to exist Punjab Wakf Board VS Mohammad Shakeel - Punjab and Haryana.

However, LIFO is merely a guiding principle, not an absolute rule. Its non-application in certain cases prevents rigidity that could undermine efficiency, performance standards, or statutory mandates.

Key Exceptions: When LIFO Does Not Apply

1. Temporary Employment or Work-Charged Establishments

Temporary workers or those in project-based (work-charged) roles often face termination without LIFO adherence. Their contracts are inherently short-term and terminable at will, without needing redundancy justification.

Courts have ruled: The principle of LIFO is not applicable to temporary employees or those in a work-charged establishment. In such cases, the termination of service can occur without adhering to LIFO, as the employment is inherently temporary and terminable at any time without reason PANCHANAN SABAT VS STATE OF ORISSA - Orissa.
This exception aligns with the nature of casual or fixed-term engagements, where permanence isn't assumed.

2. Performance-Based or Disciplinary Terminations

When termination stems from unsatisfactory performance, misconduct, or conduct issues rather than surplus staff, LIFO is irrelevant. Retaining juniors who perform better does not violate fairness principles.

A key precedent states: If an employee's termination is based on unsatisfactory performance rather than redundancy, the LIFO principle does not apply. Courts have held that when a senior employee is terminated due to performance issues, it does not violate LIFO, as the termination is not due to surplus but rather due to an assessment of work performance Union of India VS Madho Singh Samant & another - Bombay.
Further, The principle of 'Last Come First Go' is applicable in the case of retrenchment and not in a case where due to work and the conduct of the employee, he is not found to be satisfactory Punjab Wakf Board VS Mohammad Shakeel - Punjab and Haryana.
In one case, even with 12 juniors retained, the court upheld termination for non-retrenchment reasons, noting LIFO's limited scope Punjab Wakf Board VS Mohammad Shakeel - Punjab and Haryana.

The management in another dispute argued successfully: The employee not being a workman according to the Management, the principle of 'first come last go' is not applicable Management of Best and Crompton Engineering Limited rep. by the Group General Manager VS A. M. Sekar - 2011 Supreme(Mad) 2536 - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 2536.

3. Government Servants and Public Sector Roles

Government employment operates under distinct service rules, explicitly excluding LIFO.

Explicitly, The LIFO principle is explicitly stated to be inapplicable to government servants. The rationale is that government employment often follows different rules and regulations, which do not necessitate adherence to LIFO during terminations PANCHANAN SABAT VS STATE OF ORISSA - Orissa.
This preserves administrative flexibility in public service.

4. Rationalization and Policy-Driven Shifts

In educational or administrative restructuring—such as meeting teacher-student ratios—staff reallocations prioritize efficiency over strict seniority.

In cases where staff are shifted to achieve specific educational or administrative norms (such as teacher-student ratios), LIFO does not apply. The shifting is not due to surplus staff but is part of a rationalization policy aimed at improving operational efficiency Upender Kumar VS State Of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana.
A government order reinforced: adjustment will be made on the basis of principles of 'last in first out'. In sub para 4 of para 2(3) of the Government order, it has been provided that on the basis of principles of 'last in first out', all the junior most teachers will be shifted—yet courts assess if true surplus exists REENA SINGH VS STATE OF U. P. - 2018 Supreme(All) 2065 - 2018 0 Supreme(All) 2065.

5. Statutory Provisions and Specific Contexts

Certain laws or regulations override LIFO, especially in education or specialized roles.

Certain statutory provisions may explicitly state that LIFO does not apply in specific contexts, such as when dealing with the appointment and retention of educational staff under particular regulations RAJ KUMAR SINGH VS DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, AZAMGARH - Allahabad.
For non-workmen or isolated posts like principals, reservation or other policies may prevail: The claim of the petitioner that principal is an isolated post and reservation policy is not applicable stands rejected Marathwada Legal and General Education Society, Aurangabad Through its Secretary Dr. Smt. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar VS Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University - 2023 Supreme(Bom) 1331 - 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 1331.

In retrenchment disputes, failure to follow LIFO can render it illegal only if operational needs truly apply: The principal of 'last come, first go' was not adhered to, thus, retrenchment was illegal Municipal Council, Umaria VS Gopal Prasad Kacher - 2009 Supreme(MP) 1005 - 2009 0 Supreme(MP) 1005. But this flips in non-retrenchment cases.

Insights from Additional Precedents

Courts consistently limit LIFO to pure retrenchment. For instance:- A Division Bench noted: The petitioners seek re-engagement on the ground that principle of ‘last come first go’ has not... but rejected it where inapplicable Khub Singh VS HPSEBL - 2023 Supreme(HP) 243 - 2023 0 Supreme(HP) 243.- In management arguments: Section 33 or Section 25F are not applicable... the principle of 'first come last go' is not applicable for non-workmen Management of Best and Crompton Engineering Limited rep. by the Group General Manager VS A. M. Sekar - 2011 Supreme(Mad) 2536 - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 2536.

These cases underscore that context is king—performance, statutes, and employment type often trump LIFO.

Practical Recommendations for Employers and Employees

To navigate these exceptions:- Review Employment Status: Distinguish temporary vs. permanent roles PANCHANAN SABAT VS STATE OF ORISSA - Orissa.- Document Termination Grounds: Clearly link to performance or policy, not vague surplus Union of India VS Madho Singh Samant & another - Bombay.- Check Statutes and Policies: Educational rationalization or government rules may exempt LIFO Upender Kumar VS State Of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana RAJ KUMAR SINGH VS DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, AZAMGARH - Allahabad.- Assess Seniority vs. Efficiency: Courts may override LIFO for better performers Punjab Wakf Board VS Mohammad Shakeel - Punjab and Haryana.

Employees challenging terminations should prove retrenchment intent and LIFO violation.

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

The LIFO principle promotes equity in retrenchments but yields to practicality in temporary hires, performance failings, government service, rationalizations, and statutory overrides. As precedents affirm, it's not a blanket rule—each case turns on facts, ensuring terminations balance fairness with organizational needs.

Key Takeaways:- LIFO applies mainly to operational redundancies, not performance or conduct issues.- Exceptions abound for temporary staff, government roles, and policy shifts.- Always evaluate context; courts prioritize merit over mechanical seniority.

Stay informed on labor law evolutions. For tailored advice, reach out to a legal expert.

References:- PANCHANAN SABAT VS STATE OF ORISSA - Orissa Union of India VS Madho Singh Samant & another - Bombay Upender Kumar VS State Of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana RAJ KUMAR SINGH VS DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, AZAMGARH - Allahabad Punjab Wakf Board VS Mohammad Shakeel - Punjab and Haryana Khub Singh VS HPSEBL - 2023 Supreme(HP) 243 - 2023 0 Supreme(HP) 243 Management of Best and Crompton Engineering Limited rep. by the Group General Manager VS A. M. Sekar - 2011 Supreme(Mad) 2536 - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 2536 Municipal Council, Umaria VS Gopal Prasad Kacher - 2009 Supreme(MP) 1005 - 2009 0 Supreme(MP) 1005 REENA SINGH VS STATE OF U. P. - 2018 Supreme(All) 2065 - 2018 0 Supreme(All) 2065

#LIFOPrinciple, #EmploymentLaw, #RetrenchmentRules

Dhananjay Singh VS State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 1698

College, Rasra, District Ballia which is affiliated to Jannayak Chandrashekhar University, Ballia (In short respondent University) and the first statute of Mahatama Ganhi Kashi Vidyapeeth (First amendment) Statue 2011 are applicable. ... The first statute of Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth (First Amendment) Statute, 2011 is adopted by the University. The vacancy of Principal in the Colle....

Punjab Wakf Board VS Mohammad Shakeel - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2422

As regards the fourth argument, it would be noticed that the concept of "Last Come First Go" is applicable to retrenchment when there is a reduction in the work or when it ceases to exist. ... Both the Courts below have held that the principle of "Last Come First Go" has not been followed as there were as many as 12 junior employees who were retained in service. ... State of Haryana and ....

Director Of Collegiate Education VS Manager, St. Dominic College - 2023 Supreme(Ker) 378

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties on either side, we have answered the first three questions in favour of the State and the last question in favour of the petitioner. ... The said appointment was not approved by the University on the ground that the College does not have five hours of teaching workload per week for the subject viz, Statistics to be allocated to the Principal. Ext.P8 is the....

Kultali Food Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (M/s.) and Another v. State of West Bengal and Others - 2022 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 19

and as such the judgment relied by the respondent is not applicable in the instant case. ... 24 Parganas within last date of submission of application". ... (Cash - 227856/- and 9 TD of Rs. 9000000/- in Principal)" ... 39. ... Application which do not reach the District Controller of Food and Supplies, North 24 Parganas within the last date of submission as mentioned above will be reje....

Kalyan Das, S/o. Sri Girish Das VS State of Assam, Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Secondary Education Department - 2024 Supreme(Gau) 281

Examination in 2021, by securing first class. The Principal of the P. B. ... in any of the provincialised Higher Secondary School; or (iv) The candidate must have 17 years of teaching experience as Graduate Teacher in any Higher Secondary School; (v) The age of the candidates must not be more than 57 years as on the first January of ... Therefore, he submits that the Master Degree acquired by the petitioner is found to be ....

Kanoharlal Post Graduate Girls College VS State Of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 42

Therefore, by placing Principal in clause (b) and teacher in clause (c) of the first proviso, the use of the word ‘teacher’ in the second and third provisos does not express a legislative intent to deprive the Principal of the protection of the aforesaid two provisos. ... shall in the first instance be on probation for one year which may be extended for a period not exceeding one year. .....

Khub Singh VS HPSEBL - 2023 Supreme(HP) 243

applicable to such proceedings. ... come first go’. ... A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the petition filed by the petitioner on 31.8.2012, in following terms:- “The petitioners seek re-engagement on the ground that principle of ‘last come first go’ has not ... The plea regarding violation of rights of petitioner under the Act and more particularly of the principle of ‘last c....

REENA SINGH VS STATE OF U. P. - 2018 Supreme(All) 2065

The condition, as provided in sub para 4 of para 2(3) of the Government order, it has been provided that adjustment will be made on the basis of principles of “last in first out”. In sub para 4 of para 2(3) of the Government order, it has been provided that on the basis of principles of “last in first out”, all the junior most teachers will be shifted. As far as possible, such teachers will be adjusted in the nearest schools of the same block. But, surprisingly in the criteri....

B. Raghumaran (Rep. by his Power Agent, R. Bharathidasan) VS Pushpabai - 2016 Supreme(Mad) 3470

Section 203 provides when principal may revoke agent's authority. It enacts that the principal may, save as is otherwise provided by the last preceding section, revoke the authority given to his agent at any time before the authority has been exercised so as to bind the principal. Section 207 contemplates revocation and renunciation may be expressed or implied. It envisages that revocation and renunciation may be expressed or may be implied in the conduct of the principal or ....

Management of Best and Crompton Engineering Limited rep. by the Group General Manager VS A. M. Sekar - 2011 Supreme(Mad) 2536

According to the Management, Section 33 or Section 25F are not applicable to the case on hand. It was also the case of the Management before the Labour Court that the employee sought higher compensation than what was offered by the Management. The employee not being a workman according to the Management, the principle of "first come last go" is not applicable. The employee not being a workman, according to the Management, the principle of "first come last go" is not....

Municipal Council, Umaria VS Gopal Prasad Kacher - 2009 Supreme(MP) 1005

The order of termination of services was not based on departmental enquiry. He has remained unemployed after termination of his services, thus, prayer was made for his reinstatement along with back wages. The workman was receiving wages of Rs.2180/- at the time of illegal retrenchment. The principal of "last come, first go" was not adhered to, thus, retrenchment was illegal.

AI Overview...