Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:16232 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 84 of 2013 REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH 1 - (Dead) Sunder Lal Rajak, Through Legal Heirs. As Per Honble Court Order Dated 09112023 1.1 - (1). Gulab Bai Wife Of Sunder Lal Rajak, Aged About 48 Years Resident Of R.E.S. Colony, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 1.2 - (2). Ashish Kumar Rajak, Son Of Sunderlal Rajak, Aged About 25 Years Resident Of R.E.S. Colony, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 1.3 - (3). Anju Rajak, D/o. Sunder Lal Rajak, Aged About 16 Years Resident Of R.E.S. Colony, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 1.4 - (4). Anjana Rajak, Wife Of Sanjeev Rajak, Resident Of Village- Kanti, Post - Maheba, Tahsil - Amanganj, District - Panna (M.P.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Deptt Horticulture, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Ps Mandir Hasaud, Distt Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Horticulture Department, Government Of C.G. Katela Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur, Cg 3 - The Director Horticulture Department, Bijapur, District- Bijapur, Cg 4 - The Director, Horticulture Department, Government Of C.G., Dantewada, District - Dantewada, Cg ---- Respondents For Petitioners For State : :
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Priya Kaiwart, Advocate Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.04.2025 -2- 1. The original petitioner namely, Sunder Lal Razak expired on 23.10.2022 and his legal representatives were brought on record, who are the petitioners in the present petition. 2. The petitioners have challenged the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Case No.43/I.D.Act/Reference/2003 dated 05.09.2009 whereby the statement of claim presented by the original petitioner has been dismissed. 3. The dispute was referred by the Office of Labour Commissioner, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur vide letter dated 18.09.2003 which reads as under: क्या(cid:3) ቦኍ(cid:5) सु(cid:7)न्दरला(cid:3)ला रजक पि(cid:15)ता(cid:3) ቦኍ(cid:5) मद(cid:18)या(cid:3) ला(cid:3)ला क(cid:3) सु(cid:19)वा(cid:3) (cid:15)(cid:21)थक(cid:23)करण वा(cid:18)्ቕ " एवा(cid:27) उचि(cid:30)ता है(cid:18) यादिद नहै" ता# वाहै पिकसु सुहै(cid:3)याता(cid:3) क(cid:3) (cid:15)(cid:3)्ቔ है(cid:18) ताथ(cid:3) इसु सु(cid:27)बं(cid:27)ध। म) अन(cid:3)वा(cid:19)दक क# क्या(cid:3) पिनद+श दिदया(cid:3) ज(cid:3)न(cid:3) (cid:30)(cid:3)पिहैया(cid:19) " 4. The facts of the present case are that the original petitioner was appointed as a Peon on daily wages in the Horticulture Department Bijapur on 07.01.1988. He worked there till the year 1999. His services were transferred from Bijapur to Dantewada in the year 1999. The original petitioner worked there till April, 2002 and thereafter, his services were terminated without the issuance of notice and without holding any inquiry. The original petitioner moved an application before the Office of Labour Commissioner, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur and the matter was referred to the concerned Labour Court. The original petitioner pleaded that he worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and the officials of the Horticulture Department had issued experience 3 certificates in his favour. 5. The respondents filed their reply to the statement of claim and denied the averments. 6. The Learned Labour Court framed issues. The original petitioner examined himself in support of the statement of claim whereas one J.P. Tukane, Principal, examined himself for the department. 7. Learned Labour Court dismissed the statement of claim filed by the original petitioner on the ground that he failed to prove the fact that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year. It is also observed by the learned Labour Court that the transfer order has not been produced by the workman. 8. Ms. Kaiwart, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would argue that the original petitioner worked under the respondents from 1988 till the year 2002. She would further argue that the Assistant Director, Horticulture Department, Bijapur issued experience certificates vide Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/3 wherein it is clearly stated that the original petitioner worked there since 07.01.1988. She would further submit that another experience certificate was issued by the Assistant Director, Horticulture Department Bijapur on 04.08.1990 wherein it is stated that the original petitioner worked under the respondents for 2 years and 8 months as a daily rated employee. She would also submit that the name of the petitioner was in the zone of consideration for regularization and the same is evident from the letter dated 31.12.1998. She would contend that the respondents failed to controvert the contents of -4- the statement of claim and also failed to rebut the documents submitted by the original petitioner and thus, the learned Court below committed an error of law in dismissing the statement of claim filed by the original petitioner. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Shrivastava, the learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Kaiwart. He would submit that the original petitioner failed to prove the mandatory requirement that he worked under the respondents for more than 240 days in a calendar year. He would further submit that the contention made by the original petitioner was not accepted by the learned Labour Court that he was transferred from Bijapur to Dantewada as no document was produced in this regard. He would contend that as the original petitioner was a daily rated employee, his services were not transferable. He would lastly submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 10.Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 11.A perusal of the record would show that the original petitioner was appointed as a daily rated employee under the respondents on 07.01.1988. A certificate issued by the Assistant Director, Horticulture Department, Bijapur dated 04.08.1990 would show that the original petitioner worked there for a period of 2 years and 8 months and that document has not been controverted by the respondents either in their reply or in evidence. 5 12.Various documents were presented and exhibited by the original petitioner before the learned Labour Court but those documents have not been considered for the reasons best known to the Court below. It is not in dispute that the original petitioner was a daily rated employee and his services were not transferable but it appears that he was sent from Bijapur to Dantewada by the respondents’ officials and bonafidely he complied with that order, therefore there was no occasion for the original petitioner to produce the transfer order. 13. The respondents could not produce the documents to rebut the fact that the original petitioner was not removed contrary to the provisions of Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 14.Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the award dated 05.09.2009 passed by the learned Labour Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is hereby set aside. The statement of claim of the original petitioner is hereby allowed. As the original petitioner is no more and the order of reinstatement cannot be passed, the legal representatives of the original petitioner would be entitled to get a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and the same shall be paid by the respondents within a period of 90 days from today.
Decision
15.In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha