Retrenchment safeguards and last come first go rule require strict compliance; unlawful termination and unfair labour practice followed.

Retrenchment based on alleged closure or rationalisation was unlawful where the employer failed to prove bona fide closure and did not comply with mandatory statutory safeguards, including proper notice, notice to the Government, and notice of intended closure. The employer also could not justify departing from the last come first go principle or the requirement to display the seniority list, so the deviation was treated as unfair labour practice. The termination was therefore ineffective, and reinstatement with consequential monetary reliefs was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the retrenchment of the workmen was valid despite the employer's plea of closure or rationalisation of activities, and whether the conditions precedent under the Industrial Disputes Act were complied with; (ii) Whether the employer committed unfair labour practice by breaching the principle of last come first go and by not displaying the seniority list as required by the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules.

Issue (i): Whether the retrenchment of the workmen was valid despite the employer's plea of closure or rationalisation of activities, and whether the conditions precedent under the Industrial Disputes Act were complied with.

Analysis: The retrenchment notice and accompanying reasons did not establish a bona fide and proved closure of the concerned department or unit. The employer failed to show compliance with the mandatory requirements governing retrenchment, including proper notice and payment in lieu of notice, service of prescribed notice on the Government, and the statutory notice of intended closure. The Court treated these requirements as mandatory because they protect workmen against arbitrary termination and are designed to prevent invalid retrenchment from a closed unit being used to defeat statutory safeguards.

Conclusion: The retrenchment was held illegal and ineffective, and the challenge to the concurrent findings against the workmen failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the employer committed unfair labour practice by breaching the principle of last come first go and by not displaying the seniority list as required by the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules.

Analysis: The employer did not establish valid and justifiable reasons for retaining junior workmen while retrenching seniors. The seniority list was not properly displayed in the manner required, and the burden to justify deviation from the normal retrenchment rule remained on the management. In the absence of cogent evidence showing lawful deviation, breach of the statutory retrenchment principle was made out and amounted to unfair labour practice under the applicable labour law framework.

Conclusion: The finding of breach of the last come first go rule and unfair labour practice was upheld against the employer.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected and the award of reinstatement with consequential monetary reliefs was sustained, with the workmen's claims remaining successful in substance.

Ratio Decidendi: Where retrenchment or closure is used to terminate workmen, the employer must strictly comply with mandatory statutory safeguards and must justify any departure from the last come first go rule with clear, valid reasons; failure to do so renders the termination unlawful and an unfair labour practice.

---