Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.- Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner- Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) challenges the award passed by the Labour Court dated 27.94 by which the reference made by the State Govt. about the validity of the termination of respondent workman Gurumukh Singh as Driver has been accepted and award has been made against the RSRTC by holding the termination to be invalid and directing the petitioner to reinstate the workman with back wages and continuity of service. 3. The facts which led to filing of the writ petition are that according to the claim filed by the workman, he has been appointed on 7.1985 as Daily Rated Driver. From 1986 onwards, the workman was paid Rs. 20/-per day or Rs. 600/-per month by way of wages. The workman was required to discharge the duties for whole of the month without any holidays or weekly breaks. His services were also satisfactory and when he appeared on 16.1987 for duty he was refused to be taken on duty. Grounds were also raised about the authority of the Depot Manager to remove the workman from service and that the termination was by way of retrenchment contrary to the provisions of Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In this connection, it has been claimed that the workman has actually worked for more than 240 days during the 12 calendar months immediately preceding the date of termination and the termination has taken place without notice or salary in lieu of notice and without giving retrenchment compensation as referred under Section 25-F (a) or (b) 4. The present petitioner-employer took a specific plea that the workman was appointed on 17.1985 as a daily rated workman @ 20/-per day. However, when he was subjected to selection before the Selection Board, it was found that he did not had the requisite qualification of three years driving experience of heavy vehicles, therefore, his name was struck off on 18.3.1986 from the duty chart. At the relevant time, it was not necessary to publish a seniority list because the services were terminated because he was not eligible to be appointed on the post. At the relevant time, it was not necessary to publish a seniority list because the services were terminated because he was not eligible to be appointed on the post. The claim of the workman that Puskhar Lal whose driving licence was of late date then him was also denied and it has been placed on record that his services were also terminated simultaneously with the workman Gurumukh Singh. To this effect, Annex. 3 has also been placed by the present petitioner. 5. The labour Court found that the workman has actually worked for 201 days only during the 12 calendar months preceding the date of termination i.e. 18.3.1986. However, it was found that since the seniority list was not published, it cannot be said that the petitioner was junior most person whose services have been terminated by way of retrenchment on 18.3.1986. The termination cannot but be held to be in violation of Section 25-G of the Industrial Dispute Act and consequently, the termination was invalid and the workman was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and back wages. Hence, this petition. 6. Apparently, on the findings of the Tribunal, which are not in dispute before me, the petitioner was not entitled to benefit of Section 25-F of the Act, 1947, he having not been in continuous service of one year as on the date of termination took place within the meaning of Section 25-B(1) or within Section 25-B(2 ). 7. So far as breach of Section 25-G is concerned, it is not inflexible rule that a person should be retrenched strictly in order of seniority but is a handsome rule providing to follow that the rule of “last come first go” be ordinarily followed. But deviation can be made for cogent reasons to be recorded by the employer. In the present case, the fact that termination was affected after the workman was subjected to selection process but on having been found ineligible for being appointed. Apparently, the reasons which had come on record were valid and sustainable reason. Reasons having reasonable nexus with action of departure from rule of “last come first go”, the termination effected on 18th March, 1986 could not be faulted with in terms of Section 25-G. These facts are not in dispute before the Court also. 8. Apparently, the reasons which had come on record were valid and sustainable reason. Reasons having reasonable nexus with action of departure from rule of “last come first go”, the termination effected on 18th March, 1986 could not be faulted with in terms of Section 25-G. These facts are not in dispute before the Court also. 8. The Labour Court has clearly failed to notice that the deviation from the strict rule of retrenchment of seniority is permissible under Section 25-G for reasons which have rational connection with the object. Such reason has been shown to exist in the present case. Thus, the award suffers from error apparent on the face of record. 9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The award of the Labour Court is quashed and it is held that the termination of service of the respondent Gurumukh Singh on 18.3.1986 did not suffer from any invalidity. 10. There shall be no order as to costs.