JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition, it is an admitted position that the petitioner was employed with the respondent Text-book Board, Jaipur, and his services were retrenched before the completion of 240 days. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefits of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (here-in-after referred to as The Act' of 1947). The only simple question of law involved is about the applicability of the provisions of Section 25-H read with Rule 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes Rules, (here-in-after referred to as 'The Rules'). On behalf of the petitioner it was submitted that Rule 77 and 78 are mandatory in nature and character both ways. It was also submitted that the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act, are mandatory and the non-compliance of the provisions creates a right in the employee whose case has not been considered for re-employment. Mr. Shah, learned counsel for he petitioner has cited before me the case of Navbharat Hindi Daily, Nagpur v. Navbharat Shramik Sangh and another, 1984 Lab. I.C. 448 , In this judgment in para 18, their Lordships have held that Section 25-F and Section 25-G of the Act of 1947 are independent of each other and are to be complied with at the time of retrenchment. Their Lordships further held that whereas Section 25-H, is a condition precedent to be complied with while effecting retrenchment Section 25-G dated the Act of 1947, the application of the law, the procedure prescribed therein in the matter of future employment. Their Lordships further held that failure to comply either of the provisions will render the retrenchment in-valid. In the case of Gaffar and others v. The Union of India and ors., 1983(2)LLJ 285 , the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, had the opportunity to consider the provisions of Section 25-C read with Rule 77. Their Lordships have also held that Rule 77, was framed with a view to facilitate a retrenched workman to verify that he is not being discriminated against; otherwise it may be impracticable for him to collect relevant information and enforce his right. The minimum time of seven days allowed for this purpose is not necessarily long, for the workman should get an adequate opportunity to scrutinise the correctness of the seniority list before he is thrown out. Mr. The minimum time of seven days allowed for this purpose is not necessarily long, for the workman should get an adequate opportunity to scrutinise the correctness of the seniority list before he is thrown out. Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited before me the case of Prabhakaran and ors. v. The General Manager K.S.R.T.C. and another, 1981(1) S.L.R. 844 . Both provisions cannot be read together. Principles of last come first go will have to be strictly followed in all cases of retrenchment. Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited before me the case of Ramchandra Yadav v. The R.S.R.T.C., 1989(1) RLR 636 , decided by the Division Bench of this Court, had the opportunity to consider the provisions of Section 25-H read with Rule 78 and held that the petitioners are entitled to seek the re-employment if the junior persons are continued in service and at the same time to get the compensation for not considering their case for re-employment. 2. Mr. Lodha, learned counsel for the non-petitioners has argued the case with all his vehemence at his command and raised preliminary objections that there may be a dispute about the question of fact as such this Court should not exercise the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the alternate remedy is available to the petitioner to move to the Industrial Tribunal. The ( second objection raise by Mr. Lodha, is that the Rule 77 and 78 are dependent on Rule 76 of the I.D. Rules and cannot be considered without taking the aid of Rule 76 of the Rules. 3. I have heard the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and it is not necessary for me to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel for. the parties. Under Section 2(g) of the Act of 1947, the word 'Employer' has been defined as under: Employee(1) In relation to an industry carried on by under the authority of any department of (the Central Government or a State Government), the authority prescribed in this behalf or where no authority is prescribed, the head of the department; (ii) in relation to an industry carried on by or on behalf of a local authority the chief executive officer of that authority. Similarly, under Section 2-ka, of the Industrial establishment or undertaking has been defined to take into consideration the various manuals and undertakings which can be held by one employer for different purposes at different places or may be at some places but for the different purposes. Section 2-00 defines the word 'Retrenchment' as under: Section 2-00. Retrenchment-means; "the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include (a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or (b) retirement of he workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned, contains a stipulation in that behalf; or (bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf, contained there-in; or (c) Termination of the service of workman on the ground of continued ill health." Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947, defines the word 'Workman' as a person employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceedings under this Act, in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute of whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person. 4. It will not be out of place here to mention that this Court had the opportunity to interpret the definition of the word 'Workman' several time, and the consistent view of this Court is that it is not necessary that the workman should be a full time employee. A part-time employee has also been considered as a workman by this Court. A part-time employee has also been considered as a workman by this Court. This Court also had the opportunity to consider the definition of the word 'Retrenchment' as provided in Section 2-00 (bb) of the Act of 1947, renewal of the contract from time to time of the workman has been considered valid and the provisions of Section 2-00 (bb) of the I.D. Act, 1947, had not been applied in such cases. 5. To understand the argument, it is necessary for me to consider also the provisions of Section 9-A of the Act of 1947, which provides that no employer who proposes to effect any change in the condition of service applicable to any workman in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule, shall effect such change, unless the procedure prescribed. (sic under) Section 9-A has been followed. Chapter I-A, of the Act of 1947 deals with Lay-of and retrenchment. Section 25-B, provides that a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period, if he is for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service, which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman. In Clause (2) of Section 25-B of the Act, the word 'Continuous service' under an employer has been defined by deeming definition. Under Section 25-D of the Act, the obligation is cast on the employer that not- withstanding that workman in any industrial establishment have been laid-off, it shall be the duty of the every employer to maintain, for he purposes of the Chapter a muster roll, and to provide for the making of entries therein by workman, who may present themselves for work at the establishment at the appointed time during normal working hours. Section 25-D, has been inserted to safeguard the interest of all the labours. Copy of a regular muster-roll with a right to make entries in the muster-roll by the labour gives a double safeguard to the labour that the muster-roll, shows about the business and secondly the muster- roll cannot be changed as it bears the entries made by the labours. To avoid the unfair labour practise Section 25-D, has been inserted. Copy of a regular muster-roll with a right to make entries in the muster-roll by the labour gives a double safeguard to the labour that the muster-roll, shows about the business and secondly the muster- roll cannot be changed as it bears the entries made by the labours. To avoid the unfair labour practise Section 25-D, has been inserted. It will not be out of place here to mention that in Section 25-D, it has not been mentioned that the muster-roll shall be maintained only for those workmen who are in continuous service under the provisions of Section 25-B but it has to be mentioned (sic maintained) for all persons. Under the E.S.I. Act, 1949, it is necessary that all the employees should be insured under Section 28 and the contribution should be paid under Section 39 of the Act. For the purpose of E.S.I. Act, 1948(sic), the contribution is chargeable even for the employees who do not work even for a week and it goes to show that the beneficial legislation has been enacted with a view keeping in mind that the benefit of legislation should be extended to the needy labour and the maximum benefit should be given to them so that they can become the good citizen of the country. Section 25-F, of the Act, provides that no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service of not less than two hundred and forty days under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer. Thus, I find that the word 'Employer' in any industry is wide enough and carries the wider interpretation than the word 'employed' in any establishment. The second part is that about the continuous service. If the employee has fulfilled the requirements of continuous service as provided under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the workman is entitled for compensation as well as for notice. Under Section 25-FF the word 'Undertaking' has been used instead of employee in industry. Thus, Section 25-FF, is narrow in scope than Section 25-F. However, one thing should be kept in mind that the word 'Continuous service' has not been used like Section 25-H of the Act, of 1947. In Section 25-FFF the word 'Undertaking' has been used. However, the word 'Continuous Service' for not less than one year has also been mentioned. Thus, Section 25-FF, is narrow in scope than Section 25-F. However, one thing should be kept in mind that the word 'Continuous service' has not been used like Section 25-H of the Act, of 1947. In Section 25-FFF the word 'Undertaking' has been used. However, the word 'Continuous Service' for not less than one year has also been mentioned. Thus, in the cases of retrenchment under any of the provisions of Section 25-F, 25-FF and under Section 25-FFF the continuous service and the period prescribed under law is necessary for getting compensation. 6. Under Section 25-F there is a provision that where-ever, any workman is in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workman in that establishment in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employee retrenches any other workman. I find distinguishing feature in Section 25-F and the word 'Continuous Service' has not been used in Section 25-G whereas the word 'Continuous Service' has been used in Section 25-FF and Section 25-FFF of the Act. The word 'Continuous Service' has not been used in Section 25-C as the reason (sic person) will not get any compensation. The word 'Compensation' which is paid by the employer on account of retrenchment for other benefits of the service. 7. The word 'Continuous Service' has not been used in Section 25-C and H as the employer does not suffer on account of payment of compensation. For this reason, in Section 25-G the word 'Continuous service' has not been used. Similarly, Section 25-H of the Act of 1947, reads as under: Section 25-H Re-employment of retrenched workman: "Where any workmen are retrenched and the employer proposes to take into his employment any person, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity (to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India, to offer themselves for re- employment, and such retrenched workmen) who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons." 8. In this Section 25-H, the word 'Continuous Service' has also not been used as the employer is not going to lose anything on account of payment of compensation. In this Section 25-H, the word 'Continuous Service' has also not been used as the employer is not going to lose anything on account of payment of compensation. Payment of compensation on account of services continuing (sic) in appointment and giving re-employment are altogether independent to each other. Under Section 25-G the employer has been allowed to retrench the services of the workman but not by way of pick and choose but he should follow the doctrine of first come last go unless there are other compelling reasons which are in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-G. Similarly under Section 25-H, there is a provision that in the matter of re-employment that a person who has worked in the industry should be given a preferential treatment in the matter of appointment or re-employment. This is beneficial legislation for the growth of the industry and also to provide employment to those who have been thrown-out of the employment. It has also been provided that the doctrine of pick and choose should not be applied and the senior most person should be given chance first and the seniority shall be looked into. Thus, I am of the view, that the sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H are independent to each other and Section 25-G and 25-H are not in any way dependent on Section 25-F. It is not necessary that there should be a continuous service of a period prescribed under the provisions of law under Section 25-H of the Act. 9. Mr. Lodha, has submitted that in the case of Navbharat Hindi daily v. Navbharate Shramik Sangh (Supra) and also in the case of Prabhakaran v. The General Manager (Supra), in the case of Gaffar and ors. v. The U.O.I. (Supra) and also in the case of Ramchandra Yadav v. K.S.R.T.C. (Supra), their Lordships have not considered the provisions of Rule 76 of the I.D. Rules. He further submits that the provisions of Rule 76 were not brought to their Lordships notice and as such all the aforementioned cases need re-interpretation. v. The U.O.I. (Supra) and also in the case of Ramchandra Yadav v. K.S.R.T.C. (Supra), their Lordships have not considered the provisions of Rule 76 of the I.D. Rules. He further submits that the provisions of Rule 76 were not brought to their Lordships notice and as such all the aforementioned cases need re-interpretation. Rule 76 of the Rule of 1957, is reproduced which is as under: Rule 76:- Notice of Retrenchment :"- if any employer desires to retrench any workman employed in his industrial establishment who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under him (here-in-after referred to as "workman" in this Rule and Rules 77 and 78), he shall give notice of such retrenchment as in Form P to the Central Government, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and the Assistant Labour Com- missioner (Central) and the Employment. Exchange concerned, and such notice shall be served on that Government, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central), and the Employment Exchange concerned, by registered post in the following manner: (a). where notice is given to the workman, notice of retrenchment shall be sent within three days from the date on which notice is given to the workman; (b). where no notice is given to the workman and he is paid one month's wages in lieu there-of, notice of retrenchment shall be sent within 3 days from the date on which such wages are paid; and (c). Where retrenchment is carried-out under an agreement which specifies a date for the termination of service, notice of retrenchment shall be sent so as to reach the Central Government, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central) and the Employment Exchange concerned, at-least one month before such date; Provided that if the date of termination of service agreed upon is within 30 days of the agreement, the notice of retrenchment shall be sent to the Central Government, Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central) and the Employment Exchange concerned, at-least one month before such date; Provided that if the date of termination of service agreed upon is within 30 days of the agreement, the notice of retrenchment shall be sent to the Central Government, Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), the Asstt. Regional Com- missioner, (Central) and the Employment Exchange concerned, within 3 days of the agreement." In this Rule, it has been provided that any employer desires to retrench any workman in his industrial establishment who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under him (here-in-after referred to as the 'Workman) in this rule and rule 77 and 78, he shall give notice of such retrenchment as in Form P to the Central Government and the other authorities prescribed therein. The word "Workman" has been defined under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947, any person employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled technical, operational electrical or supervisory work for hire or reward, for a day or years together may be a workman and the continuity of service is not necessary as far as the definition of workman as defined under Section 2-S of the Act of 1947. Rule 76 is a further safeguard and it provides that in case the retrenchment is made of a workman who has completed more than one year's service, it is the duty of the employer to give a notice in Form-P to the Central Government or to the authority concerned. Thus, the object of Rule 76 is to safe-guard that where the retrenchment so made of the person who has served for one year continuously is according to law or not. This Rule has been inserted looking to the need of the society and particularly, the directions given in Chapter IV of the Constitution of India. I will like to refer the provisions of Article 43 which directs the State that the State shall endeavor to secure, by suitable legislation or economic organisation or in any other way, all workers, agricultural, industrial or otherwise work, a living wage conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full employment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities and, in particular, the State shall endeavor to promote cottage industries on an individual or cooperative basis in rural area. Article 47 of the Constitution of India, directs that the State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among the primary duties and, in particular the State shall endeavor to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to public health. Apart from that the framers of the Constitution have had the idea of the society in which the living of the people in the society has specifically been mentioned. It has also been mentioned that the State shall strive for justice, social, economic and political. There is further direction about the equality and it was well-known to the framers of the Constitution of India, that the labour is part of down-trodden sector of the society and has been exploited for years together and there is a need of protection to the labour. Rule 76 of the Rules has been inserted in the Rules and the object of Rule 76 and 77 is altogether different. Rule 76 by implication directs the State to agitate the matter of wrongful retrenchment. 10. Rule 77, is a Rule, which has been prescribed for the welfare of the labour but directs the employer to maintain the list of all workmen in a particular category from which retrenchment is contemplated arranged according to the seniority of their service in that category and cause a copy thereof to be pasted on a notice board in a conspicuous place in the premises of the industrial establishment at-least seven days before the actual date of retrenchment. This Rule has been inserted with the object that at-least seven days before the retrenchment copy of the seniority list shall be prepared and the same shall be pasted on the notice board in conspicuous place in the premises of the industrial establishment, so that the persons who are not retained in employment can understand the position with regard to seniority and can also know that who are senior to him and who are junior to him. After the retrenchment of the workman if junior persons are retained in the establishment, he can move to the court for injunction against the retrenchment on the ground that the juniors are being kept without any reason and I have been retrenched in spite of the fact that I am senior. Thus, this is a distinguishable feature of Rule 76 and 77 of the Industrial Rules. The Rule 77 is mandatory in nature as this rule is for the benefit of the labour and further more it enables the labour to find out the truth and to see whether he is getting due justice at the hands of the employer or not. For this reason, I am-of the view, that the object of Rule 76 and 77 are altogether different. It cannot be said that the Rule 77 is dependent on Rule 76 but I am of the view that both the Rules are independent to each other. I will now deal with Rule 78 also. Rule 77 should be read with the provisions of Section 25-G and Rule 78 should be read with the provisions of Section 25-H. In Rule 78, of the Rules, there is a provision that even after the retrenchment, a person who has been retrenched is having a right of re- employment and that too is pasted on the notice board regarding seniority amongst the retrenched person. Rule 78 directs that at-least 10 days before the date on which the vacancies are to be filled, the employer shall arrange for the display on a notice board in a conspicuous place in the premises of the industrial establishment details of those vacancies and shall also give intimation of these vacancies by registered post to all the retrenched workers eligible to be considered. Therefore, the address given by him at the time of retrenchment we will have to take into consideration the Rule 76 of the Rules so that the person in employment can see the notice board easily and the time of 7 days has been given in Rule 77 of the Rules. Under Rule 78, time of 10 days has been given. Under Rule 78, time of 10 days has been given. Apart from that the duties cast on the employer also safeguard the interest of the labour with a view that at the time of re- employment the employer cannot avail the policy of pick and choose and at the same time he cannot be allowed to recruit a new person. All the 3 rules are the different rules. Rule 76 of the Rules, con- templates the action of the authorities sou-motu to defend the cause of the labour. Rule 77 of the Rules, enables the labour to find-out and to contest his own case before retrenchment. Thus, I am of the view that all the rules are mandatory in nature and any violation of the rules particularly Rule 76, 77 and 78 of the Rules, will give a cause to the labour to claim the compensation, damages and to claim employment from the employer. I clarify it again that for the purpose of Rule 77 and 78 the word 'Continuous service' as provided in Section 25-H (sic 25-F) of the Act of 1947, is not necessary but any workman who has not even completed 240 days can also get the advantage of Rule 77, 76 and 78 of the I.D. Act, 1947 (sic Rules). In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the petitioner was discharged from service from 1.11.1988 and the respondents have come with a case that they have employed the few persons subsequent to 1.11.1988. The respondents have also come with a case that the persons so employed have been discharged on 19.8.1989. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner can claim the wages by way of compensation of the period during which his juniors remain in employment either by way of retention against the provisions of Section 25-C of the I.D. Act, 1937 (sic 1947) on account of re-employment. The petitioner shall be paid wages and the wages will be concluded (sic calculated) by the employer and if there is any dispute, the petitioner can move before the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court for the computation of back wages under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947. In case, the new appointments are made the case of the petitioner shall be considered according to the provisions of law. 12. The writ petition is deposed-of as indicated above. 13. In case, the new appointments are made the case of the petitioner shall be considered according to the provisions of law. 12. The writ petition is deposed-of as indicated above. 13. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******