Retrenchment Valid As Last-Cum-First-Go Violation Unproven After Unit Closure | HC
- Blog|News|Labour & Industrial Laws|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 1 June, 2026

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
List of Cases Referred to
- India District Red Cross Society v. Babita Arora (2007) 7 SCC 366 (para 10).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.

Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied

CA | CS | CMA