Judgment 1. This solution to payment of employees of State Public Sector Undertakings defies logic. It seems like a never ending story. It may be advantageous to those Managers who ran these Corporations but a tragedy for the workers particularly in Class III & IV post who never received their emoluments. 2. The issues in this case are not very complicated. The appellant was initially engaged as a Casual Conductor in 1980 at Phulwari Depot of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) and from there he was transferred to Arrah Division in the year 1981. Again he was transferred from Arrah Division to the newly created Phulwari Division vide letter no, 1223 dated 5.4.1989. As there was a need for a Hindi Steno Typist in the office of the Divisional Manager, Phulwari Division, the appellant, who was otherwise trained in Hindi typing and shorthand, after being tested by the Divisional Manager was assigned to work as a Hindi Steno Typist. His emoluments did not increase even though his nature of work had seen a change. He states that he continued on a meagre salary of a Casual Conductor. 3. According to the appellant, as there were vacant posts he had made a representation and addressed it to the Chief Minister, Bihar, given by a Member of the Legislative Assembly with a request that he be regularised on the vacant sanctioned post of a Hindi Steno Typist. The appellant contends that he worked till 29th February 1996. The appellant even claims that he has discharged continuous service within the meaning of the law and is entitled to reguiarisation of his service. 4. In defence it is accepted that he had been appointed in 1980 (5.6.1980) and had continued to work upto 16.9.1983. It is accepted that he came into service again on 27.4.1988 on the post of a Casual Conductor. The counter affidavit does not mention about the period the appellant worked. This aspect is conveniently evaded. It is accepted in the counter affidavit that apart from work as a Casual Conductor he discharged work as a Hindi Steno Typist a post which was lying vacant. The explanation given to take work as of a steno typist from a Casual Conductor is irrelevant What is relevant is the work which the appellant did. 5. It is accepted in the counter affidavit that apart from work as a Casual Conductor he discharged work as a Hindi Steno Typist a post which was lying vacant. The explanation given to take work as of a steno typist from a Casual Conductor is irrelevant What is relevant is the work which the appellant did. 5. Today, the court is being intimated that the appellant worked up to 24.2.1996. This is stated in paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit filed today. Why was this period of work not declared and pleaded in the counter affidavit when the petition was being decided. Clearly, even if the case of the Corporation is taken on its face value as is being given today (not given to the court which decided the writ petition) then the appellant did work between the periods 1989 to 1996, a period of 7 years. Not ignoring the earlier period, on which he worked from 1980 onwards, admitted to the Corporation as upto 1983 but claimed by the appellant as continuous, is an additional relevant circumstance. 6. In submissions as have been made today it is contended that the appellant be deemed as retrenched. Retrenchment is an aspect of an industrial law, and must be a factual circumstance otherwise it will amount to illegal retrenchment. The Corporation is not coming out with a clean case. It even attempted to hide the case relating to this workman that he had worked till 1996. The defence taken by the Corporation was suppressed record and an unfair stand. The Corporation even accepts that the appellant was on the muster roll. His seniority number is given as 866. It is explained that some persons higher in seniority were regularised. 7. The issue and the problem of unpaid employees of Government companies is not the only malaise. Cases like the present one also exist. 8. The court had passed an order on 2.12.2003, which is reproduced: "This is the case of one Prem Chand Pandey who filed a writ petition by stating that he had initially been employed as a conductor in 1980 by the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). According to the appellant his emoluments w. e. f. 17.3.1989 till date have not been paid. According to the appellant his emoluments w. e. f. 17.3.1989 till date have not been paid. He was unsuited in the writ petition on the ground that the Corporation is in an adverse financial condition and, thus, he could not have the relief for either the payment of his emolument of regularisation of his services, which he claims. Being aggrieved he filed the present Letters Patent Appeal. Beyond this the Court will speak nothing on merit at present. Suffice it to say that the pleadings which were filed in the writ petition were done so by an Assistant (in the Legal Division). No pleading of responsibility was filed at the High Court. The person, who perhaps did not have the rank of lower divisional clerk, had been deputed to generate the litigation. No officer had the courage to reply to the petition. This is half the misunderstanding. Employees cannot be thrown out just for the askance and financial constraints may not be an excuse for a State Public Sector Undertaking to do so. The law provides a modality for such situations both for the employer and employee. If the defence is as was given before the Court which was deciding the writ petition then let the Corporation place the records before the Court since 1980 on who exactly was on managerial positions, the Board of Directors when the management was superseded, who is receiving salary, the entire list of the workers and the audited accounts since 1980. Put up day after tomorrow under the same heading." 9. The last information as the court had desired in the last paragraph of the order was conveniently kept away. The court heard submissions on merits. There is no scope for improving the record. The case normally ought to be judged on the same record as the writ petition and exchanged pleadings. The information sought by the court was not given. While this order was being dictated some materials were placed. This may lie on the record. 10. The only aspect which is to be examined now is the contention of the Corporation that this employee is to be retrenched or was retrenched. 11. Retrenchment is phraseology which comes from the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It clearly an aspect which is referred to in section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. 10. The only aspect which is to be examined now is the contention of the Corporation that this employee is to be retrenched or was retrenched. 11. Retrenchment is phraseology which comes from the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It clearly an aspect which is referred to in section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Any exercise of retrenchment cannot be gone into unless a workman has discharged "continuous service". Only when continuous service has been discharged then on the principle of first come last go there will be an exercise on retrenchment. The moment the Corporation recognized the aspect that this workman had been retrenched or needs to be retrenched then it is accepted that he discharged continuous service. In this case, between the facts given whether it was three years period between 1980 to 1983 and from 1989 to 1996 as the Corporation says so or the period between 1982 to 1996 as the workman says so, there is no element of doubt that he had discharged continuous service in a calendar year beyond 240 days. Thus, "continuous service" is an accepted fact. 12. The court put the proposition to the Corporations Counsel that whatever be the dues of the workman he may be given. The court is not interferring with any scheme. The court has not given any direction that he be regularised. The court is not indicating to the Corporation that the workman be reinstated. In Bihar this disease is epidemic? More than Twenty two thousand employees in Government companies and Government Corporations are waiting to receive their dues and in making a protest some have even immolated themselves. This is not a problem from which the Government or its managers or the bureaucrat can run away. 13. A suggestion was given by Counsel for the Corporation that the workman may file a representation before the Administrator. There is no scope for any representation. If the representation is rejected then again the workman will come in a writ petition and this saga will go on till his death or otherwise. 14. If retrenchment is the end to the severence of relationship, as is the case of the Corporation with no direction given by this court, then such a case must be based on solid foundations. 14. If retrenchment is the end to the severence of relationship, as is the case of the Corporation with no direction given by this court, then such a case must be based on solid foundations. If others have been regularised against the principle of first come last go, then there is hostile discrimination and a malafide administration. But the workman in such circumstances cannot remain in suspended animation. He must be indicated his fate under the law. 15. As a test case and as a special case in the circumstances of workmen of Government companies if the parameters of continuous services exist and the chances of the Government companies restarting are remote then retrenchment compensation is the service right of a workman. 16. Let the petitioner Prem Chand Pandey file his claim under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to receive his emoluments before the Labour court on the basis of the admitted case that he is either retrenched or should be deemed to have been retrenched. The appellant may lay his claim as he gives it before the High Court that he worked from 1982 - 96. The Corporation may take up its stand that he worked from 1982-93 with breakup to 1988 and thereafter reinstated in service from 1988 to 1996. It is understood that if the Labour Court come to the conclusion that continuous service has been discharged during the first period then it is a logical consequence of an industrial adjudication that the retrenchment if made may tantamount to illegal retrenchment violating section 25F. However, whether it does or does not will depend upon the plea which the Corporation may take. Illegal retrenchment attracts a relief of reinstatement under the law. 17. Whatever be the dues to which the workman may be entitled, this be computed and delivered to the workman. The proceedings be determined by the Labour Court within six weeks of the application being flied by the workman. 18. The order passed on the writ petition is modified to the extent as observed in this appeal. 19. The appeal succeeds. 20. Consigned.