Retrenchment compliance and seniority rules: tendered dues satisfied notice requirements, but last come first go still applied across units.

Retrenchment dues tendered with the termination notice satisfied the statutory condition precedent for compliance with the retrenchment-payment requirement, because the workmen continued in service until service of the notice despite an earlier stated effective date; the finding of breach on that ground was set aside. By contrast, common supervision, consolidated accounts and employee transfers showed that two units formed one industrial establishment, so the last come first go rule applied across both units and junior employees had to be retained. As reinstatement was impracticable after closure, relief was confined to back wages for the specified period in lieu of reinstatement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the retrenchment was invalid for non-compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (ii) Whether the retrenchment violated the principle of last come first go under Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and what relief should follow.

Issue (i): Whether the retrenchment was invalid for non-compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Analysis: The wages and retrenchment compensation were tendered when the termination notice was served. The fact that the notice mentioned an earlier effective date did not alter the position that the workmen continued in service till the date of service of the notice, and the tender covered the dues payable up to that date. Section 25F requires tender of the statutory amount as a condition precedent, and that requirement was satisfied on the facts found.

Conclusion: The finding of breach of Section 25F was unsustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the retrenchment violated the principle of last come first go under Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and what relief should follow.

Analysis: Both units formed one industrial establishment, as shown by common supervision, consolidated accounts and transfers of employees between units. Junior polishers were still employed when the respondents were retrenched, so the employer was bound to comply with Section 25G across both units. In view of the closure of the establishments, reinstatement was not appropriate and monetary relief was sufficient.

Conclusion: The finding of breach of Section 25G was upheld, but the relief was confined to back wages for the specified period in lieu of reinstatement.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded only to the extent of modifying the award on relief, while sustaining liability for improper retrenchment under the retrenchment seniority rule and limiting the monetary consequence accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: For retrenchment, statutory compliance is satisfied when the retrenchment dues are tendered along with the termination notice, and where connected units constitute one industrial establishment, the last come first go principle applies across the whole establishment; if reinstatement has become impracticable, compensation or back wages may be awarded in substitution.

---