Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:17383 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 27 of 2014 Shiv Sahay Devangan S/o Lakhan Lal Devangan Aged About 35 Years R/o Pandariya, Ps Pandariya, Distt Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1.The Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division, Kawardha, Distt Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 2.The Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner For State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. B.S. Rajput, Advocate : Mr. Topi Lal Bareth, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16. 04.2025 1. The instant petition has been filed against the award dated 23.07.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon in Case No. 38/ID Act Reference/2008, whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. 2. The petitioner was working as a daily-rated employee under the respondents and was orally removed from services vide order dated 18.02.2000. 2 The services of the petitioner were discontinued, and thereafter, Rs. 10,205/- as a retrenchment allowance was paid. The petitioner made a complaint before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Rajnandgaon, and thereafter, the matter was referred by the State Government to the learned Labour Court, Rajnandgaon according to the provisions of Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “Act, 1947”). The petitioner filed the statement of claim on 22.05.2008 inter alia on the ground that he was engaged by the respondents in the year 1994 against a vacant post of Chowkidar. It is further stated that he worked for more than 240 days, but without assigning any reason, the services were discontinued vide order dated 18.02.2000. It is also stated that the retrenchment allowance of Rs.10,205/- was paid after one month. The second party filed a reply to the statement of claim. They pleaded that the petitioner failed to establish the fact that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year and the claim of the petitioner is bogus. The parties led evidence, the learned Labour Court framed issues and held that the petitioner could not prove that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year; the termination of his service was not illegal and it is further held that he is not 3 entitled to the relief of reinstatement and arrears of back wages. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that according to the document issued by the department, the petitioner worked for five years under the respondents. The document reveals that the petitioner was appointed in the month of July, 1995 and he was paid retrenchment allowance to the tune of Rs. 10,205/-. He would also submit that the petitioner was removed contrary to the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that the petitioner could not adduce evidence before the learned Labour Court to establish that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year. He would further submit that the statement of claim was filed with a delay of eight years without explaining the delay. He would also submit that the learned Labour Court after appreciating documentary and oral evidence dismissed the statement of claim filed by the petitioner. He would contend that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the 4 record. 6. Perusal of the record would show that the petitioner filed a statement of claim on 22.05.2008. According to the document submitted by the petitioner before the learned Labour Court, he was appointed under the respondents in the month of July, 1995 and worked for five years. In the year 2000, he was engaged at West Pandariya. 7. The petitioner examined himself as witness No. 1 and Sesh Puri Goswami as witness No. 2. No-one was examined by the department. The petitioner also filed various documents to prove his contention. 8. Section 25F of the Act, 1947 states about Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen, the same is reproduced herein-below :- “25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.—No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until— (a) the workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice; 1[***] (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay 2[for every completed year of continuous service] 5 or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3[or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]. 9. Bare reading of this provision would make it clear that the employer has to give one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and after the expiry of the period of notice, the employer is under an obligation to make payment of adequate allowance in lieu of such notice. The compensation would be equivalent to 15 days’ average pay and notice has to be served in the prescribed manner. 10. Perusal of the record and documents would show that the department failed to comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, 1947. The notice was not placed on record by the department, the period of notice is also not mentioned and it is also not stated that Rs. 10,205/- was given to the petitioner as a retrenchment allowance. The petitioner has proved the fact that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year. 11. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in my opinion, the award passed by the learned Labour Court is not sustainable in the eyes 6 of the law; therefore, the same is hereby set- aside. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby allowed. 12. It is stated by the petitioner in the application that he was not gainfully employed anywhere; therefore, the petitioner is reinstated in service and would be entitled to receive 30% of back wages. Judge (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Sd/-Sd/- $iddhant