Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon Through Its Commissioner, Municipal District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:27793 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 122 of 2019 SMT NIRMALA RAO 1 - Pramod Kumar S/o Shri Beni Madhav Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Bhatagaon, Post Bhedikala, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner Versus 1 - Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon Through Its Commissioner, Municipal District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh Rajnandgaon, Corporation, --- Respondent For Petitioner For Respondent : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25/06/2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the award passed by the learned Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, Rajnandgaon (C.G) in Case No. 142/I.D.Act/2011/Ref dated 4.2.2019 (pronounced on 7.3.2019), whereby the statement of claim filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. The facts of the present case are that an application was made by the petitioner before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and thereafter, the appropriate Government referred the matter under the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act in the year 2011. The sum and substance of the statement of claim filed by the petitioner is that he was engaged by the respondent department as a daily-rated labourer in the year 2004 and was receiving wages of Rs.3,952/- per 2 month. He also pleaded that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year but without assigning sufficient reason and without payment of retrenchment allowance, his services were discontinued. It was further pleaded that the respondent failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner sought reinstatement along with full back wages. 3. The respondent/employer filed a reply, taking a specific stand that the petitioner was engaged on a need basis. It is further pleaded that since there was no requirement for his services, the petitioner’s engagement was discontinued and hence there was no obligation to comply with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner led evidence and submitted documents to establish that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year. However, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish this fact. Consequently, the statement of the claim filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 4. Mr. Somkant Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the workman submitted relevant documents before the learned Labour Court to demonstrate that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year, but his services were terminated in contravention of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He would further submit that no opportunity of hearing was afforded by the respondent and no inquiry was conducted. It is also argued that no retrenchment compensation was paid nor was any notice or one month’s salary in lieu of notice provided under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act given to him. He would contend that the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate the documents and evidence adduced by the 3 petitioner. It is also argued that the respondent filed a reply but it failed to lead any evidence, which is fatal to the employer’s case. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner failed to prove the fact that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year. He would further submit that the learned Labour Court examined the documents and rightly concluded that the petitioner could not prove the claim. According to the documents submitted by the petitioner himself, most of the employees worked only for 25-26 days in a calendar year, and their engagement was purely on a need basis. He would further contend that the petitioner was not appointed against any vacant and sanctioned post, therefore, there was no need to issue any specific order for discontinuation of services. He would also contend that the learned Labour Court relying on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of M.P. and Others vs. Arjunlal Razak reported in (2006) 2 SCC 711 dismissed the statement of claim presented by the petitioner, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the onus to prove the fact that a workman has worked for 240 days in a calendar year lies upon the workman himself. He would state that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged as a daily-rated employee under the respondent from the year 2004 to 2010. In the year 2010, his services were discontinued. He worked for 25 days in the month of October, 2004. Thereafter, an application was moved before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, and the appropriate government 4 referred the matter under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Before the learned Labour Court, the petitioner filed a statement of claim along with documents and also adduced oral evidence. The respondent filed a reply but failed to lead any evidence. It is a well- settled principle of law that the burden lies upon the petitioner/plaintiff to prove his case and he cannot take the shelter of the respondent/defendant. 8. In the present case, the petitioner failed to produce documentary evidence to establish the fact that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year. The document submitted by the petitioner and scrutinized by the learned Labour Court would show that the petitioner worked for less than 240 days in a calendar year. It appears that his engagement was purely on a need basis. 9. Since the petitioner was not appointed against a sanctioned and vacant post and failed to produce any document to prove that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year, there was no obligation upon the respondent to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 10. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arjunlal Razak (supra), in my considered opinion, no case is made out for interference. 11. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. Nimmi Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge