ORDER : By way of instant petition, petitioners have assailed the Award dated 21.3.2016 passed by learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala (for short ‘Labour Court’) in Reference No. 135 of 2015. 2. The respondent herein (for short ‘workman’), on 8.10.2009, issued demand notice under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘Act’) upon petitioner No.2 (for short ‘employer’) whereby he sought redressal of his grievance in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 3. Workman claimed that he had worked as “Beldar” in Wildlife Division, Hamirpur on daily wage basis during the entire year of 2008 and he was illegally retrenched w.e.f. 01.01.2009. It was further alleged that after his retrenchment the employer engaged 17 workmen during 2009 without affording any opportunity of re-engagement to the workman. Principle of ‘last come first go’ was stated to have been violated. It was also the allegation of the workman that he was not allowed to complete 240 days in one year by employing fictional breaks. Thus, violations of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act were alleged. 4. The conciliation proceedings were unsuccessfully conducted by Conciliation Officer, whereafter failure report was submitted to the appropriate Government. Accordingly, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the appropriate Government with following reference: “Whether the termination of services of Shri Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh, R/o Village and P.O. Nakrana, Tehsil Shree Naina Devi Jee, District Bilaspur, H.P. by the Divisional Forest Officer, Wild Life Division, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. w.e.f. 01.01.2009 without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and relief the above workman is entitled to?” 5. In his claim submitted before the Labour Court, the workman reiterated his pleas as raised in the demand notice and prayed for directions to the employer to re-engage the workman with benefits of due seniority and continuity in service. 6. The employer contested the claim of the workman on the grounds that the workman had worked only as a casual labour. The employer used to have seasonal works for raising of nursery and plantation etc. and workers were engaged as per availability of works and funds. It was further submitted that the workman used to attend the work as per his own wish. The employer used to have seasonal works for raising of nursery and plantation etc. and workers were engaged as per availability of works and funds. It was further submitted that the workman used to attend the work as per his own wish. He was not regular in attending the work. The allegation of retrenchment of worker was specifically denied. As per employer, the workman had worked intermittently during the year 2008 for total 72 days. It was clarified that the persons engaged after 01.01.2009 were employed under the H.P. Zoos Conservation Breeding Society, in Monkey Sterilization Centre Saster, District Hamirpur and Gopalpur, District Kangra on contract basis after obtaining necessary permission from the Additional Chief Secretary (Forests) to the Government of H.P. It was stated that the workman was not entitled to seek parity with the persons so employed under the contract. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case. 8. The Labour Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. 01.01.2009 is/was improper and unjustified as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what service benefits the petitioner is entitled to? OPP 3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 4. Relief. 9. The claim of workman was allowed partly and an award in the following terms was passed: “As a sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, the reference/claim petition is allowed partly. The respondent is hereby directed to re-engage the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner shall be entitled to seniority and continuity in service from the date of his illegal termination except back wages. The parties, however, shall bear their own costs.” 10. Before entering the arena of merits of instant case, this Court is reminded the following excerpts from judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corpn. (2010) 3 SCC 192 and intends to gainfully use them for guidance: “21. The parties, however, shall bear their own costs.” 10. Before entering the arena of merits of instant case, this Court is reminded the following excerpts from judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corpn. (2010) 3 SCC 192 and intends to gainfully use them for guidance: “21. Before concluding, we consider it necessary to observe that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution in matters like the present one, the High Courts are duty bound to keep in mind that the Industrial Disputes Act and other similar legislative instruments are social welfare legislations and the same are required to be interpreted keeping in view the goals set out in the Preamble of the Constitution and the provisions contained in Part IV thereof in general and Articles 38, 39 (a) to (e), 43 and 43-A in particular, which mandate that the State should secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people, ensure equality between men and women and equitable distribution of material resources of the community to sub-serve the common good and also ensure that the workers get their dues.” 11. Learned Labour Court, after taking into consideration the seniority list Ext.PW-1/D and the man-days charts Ext.PW-1/B and Ext.PW-1/C, has held violation of Section 25-G of the Act on account of non-adherence to the principle of ‘last come first go’. This conclusion, in the considered view of this Court, is not sustainable. The last day when workman worked was 31.12.2008. Ext.PW-1/D is the mandays Chart/Seniority List of daily wagers (month-wise in each calendar year) from year 1999 onwards (upto 31.7.2010) in respect of Wildlife Division Hamirpur. The name of workman is reflected at serial No.18 of this document and after him at serial Nos. 19 and 20 are the persons, who were also engaged in July and August, 2008, respectively. However, the person at serial No.19 had worked in July and August, 2008 only for 46 days and the person at serial No.20 had worked only for 2 days in the month of August, 2008. Meaning thereby workman remained the last employed person for the year 2008 because he worked till 31.12.2008. In light of this fact, it cannot be said that there was violation of the principle of ‘last come first go’. 12. Similarly, reliance on documents Ext. Meaning thereby workman remained the last employed person for the year 2008 because he worked till 31.12.2008. In light of this fact, it cannot be said that there was violation of the principle of ‘last come first go’. 12. Similarly, reliance on documents Ext. PW-1/B and Ext.PW-1/C by learned Labour Court for holding violation of Section 25G, cannot be countenanced. Perusal of these documents reveal that these relate to the persons, who were employed on daily wages in the Forest Division, Bilaspur, which was distinct and separate from the Wildlife Division Hamirpur. It has been clarified by RW-1 in his cross-examination that the seniority lists were maintained at Circle level and the Wildlife Division, Hamirpur and the Forest Division, Bilaspur fell under different Circles. 13. Notwithstanding that the reasoning adopted by the learned Labour Court for holding violation of Section 25-G is held to be incorrect, still the violation of Section 25-G is made out in the facts of the case. 14. Retrenchment is the sine qua non for violation of Section 25-G, which reads as under: “25G. Procedure for retrenchment.- Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen 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 employer retrenches any other workman.” 15. Retrenchment has been defined in Section 2 (oo) of the Act, as under: “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 the 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 therein; or (c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health.” 16. Thus, for retrenchment, termination has to be by the employer and it should not be the result of any voluntary act of the workman. 17. Admittedly, workman in the instant case was not a contract employee. As per workman, he was not allowed to perform work w.e.f. 01.01.2009 on the ground of want of work and funds. In cross-examination, a simple suggestion has been put to workman that he was not removed from the work by the department which was categorically denied by him. The case represented by the employer otherwise is that the employer used to have only seasonal work. Sh. H.K. Sarwata, IFS, the then Divisional Forest Officer, Bilaspur, as RW-1 deposed that workman was engaged as seasonal worker on daily wage basis for seasonal forestry work as per availability of works and funds during June, July and December, 2008. Thus, even if disengagement of workman was on account of non-availability of work, still it will amount to retrenchment because it suffices that the termination of the service of a workman had taken place, reason being immaterial. 18. Since violation of principle of ‘last come first go’ has not been established in the facts of the present case, as such, despite the retrenchment of workman being there, Section 25-G, cannot be said to have been infringed. 19. It is the violation of Section 25-H, which is evident on record. It has been proved that about 17 persons were engaged in September and October, 2009 by employer in Wildlife Division, Hamirpur. The plea of employer that these persons were employed on contract basis with prior approval of competent authority against a specific project makes no difference. It is not the case of employer that the persons so employed had some special qualification or the persons with special qualifications were required to be engaged for the claimed project. 20. Section 25-H of the Act, reads as under: “25H. Re- employment of retrenched workmen.- Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, 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 reemployment, and such retrenched workmen] who offer themselves for re- employment shall have preference over other persons.” 21. Admittedly, when the above noted 17 persons were engaged by employer, the workman was not afforded requisite opportunity to afford himself for re-employment and, thus, there is clear violation of this provision of Section 25-H of the Act. No fault can be found with the findings recorded by learned Labour Court in this respect. 22. The findings returned by the learned Labour Court to the effect that the workman had worked only for a period of 72 days in the entire calendar year 2008, are also based on the facts proved on record. However, the number of days for which workman was engaged will not make any difference insofar as the violation of Section 25-H of the Act is concerned. The only requirement is that the workman should have been retrenched and he should not have been afforded opportunity to offer himself for re-engagement at the time when the employer seeks to reengage persons subsequent to his retrenchment. 23. Learned Senior Additional Advocate General, on behalf of petitioners, has also contended that the claim of the workman was stale and should not have been allowed. This argument deserves rejection for the reason that the cause of action accrued to the workman in September 2009, when new persons were engaged by employer and the workman had issued demand notice under Section 2A of the Act on 8.10.2009. 24. Though some of the findings returned by learned Labour Court, as detailed above, have been interfered with by this Court, but that will not affect the final outcome. 25. In the light of above discussion, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.