Retrenchment Valid As Last-Cum-First-Go Violation Unproven After Unit Closure

Case Details: Budhi Chand Sharma vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court-I - [2026] 186 taxmann.com 807 (HC-Punjab & Haryana)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J.
Lajpat Rai Sharma, Vivek Khatri & Ajay Chaudhary, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Pawan Kumar Mutneja, Sr. Adv., Viranjeet Singh Mahal & Ms Seema Pasricha, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner-workmen challenged the Labour Court’s award upholding the validity of their retrenchment by the respondent-Company. Petitioners alleged that juniors were retained in violation of last-cum-first-go rule.

It was noted that since no junior’s name was mentioned in the pleadings, and even during evidence, the alleged juniors were not correlated with the seniority list in the relevant cadre, the claim that juniors were retained could not be accepted.

Further, it was noted that, since certain employees were engaged after retrenchment through contractors and were not employees of the respondent company, the petitioners could not controvert this fact.

High Court Held

The High Court held that, since the petitioners’ unit was closed and no one had been retained, the closure of the unit, or the retrenchment of the petitioners after its closure, could not be treated as arbitrary. Thus, the Labour Court’s award holding that the retrenchment of the petitioners was valid had not been able to be proved perverse either to facts or to the settled principles of law; hence, no interference was called for.

List of Cases Reviewed

District Red Cross Society v. Babita Arora (2007) 7 SCC 366 (para 10) followed
Award of the Labour Court (impugned in CWP-8541-2019, CWP-11065-2019, CWP-8558-2019, CWP-8560-2019, CWP-8572-2019, CWP-8580-2019 and CWP-8586-2019) Order of the Labour Court (no citation available) (para 12) affirmed