ABDULRAHIMAN Vs. DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were casual labourers with temporary status attached to the respondent Railway. The impugned notice (Ext. P1) was served on them in terms of S.25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act'). This notice is challanged for the reason that it did not comply with S.25-F of the Act, in so far as it purported to terminate the services of the petitioners while their juniors were retained in service. This, the petitioners contend, was contrary to the rule that a junior should not ordinarily be retained in service while his senior is retrenched. This principle of last come, first go must ordinarily be followed except where it is deviated from for reasons to be recorded. This is what S.25-F says:

(2.) Respondents' counsel, Shri Ramachandran, submits that since respondents 3 to 5 formed a separate category, S.25G was not attracted by their retention in service while the petitioners were retrenched.

(3.) The question therefore is whether from the facts stated and records produced can it be stated that respondents 3 to 5 did not belong to the same category as the petitioners. If they did, S.25G would undoubtedly be violated, if the rule was deviated from without recording the reasons for the same. Although Shri Ramachandran faintly contended that it was unnecessary to record reasons in the order itself so long as reasons were available and recorded in the files of the railway. I am of the view that the reasons have to be shown on the face of the order. That is what S.25G says. Be that as it may, no record containing any reason for deviation from the rule contained in S.25G has been shown to me.