Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Punuram And Ors. S/o Sadhu Ram Lodhi R/o Village Kohalatola , P.S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:48178 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 71 of 2015 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. Through The Secretary Department Of Water Resources Chhattisgarh Mahanadi Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Bhawan, 2 - The Executive Engineer, Poparia Project, Head Work, Water Resources Sub Division Chhuikhadan, Tah, And Post Chhuikhadan District Rajandgaon Chhattisgarh , District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - Punuram And Ors. S/o Sadhu Ram Lodhi R/o Village Kohalatola , P.S. And Tahsil Chhattisgarh Chhuikhadan, Rajanndgaon Chhattisgarh District , 2 - Devanand S/o Subhash Lodhi R/o Village Kohalatola , P.S. And Tahsil Chhuikhadan, Chhattisgarh District Rajanndgaon Chhattisgarh Rajnandgaon, District : , 3 - Nandlal S/o Ganpat Lodhi R/o Village Kohalatola , P.S. And Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Chhattisgarh Rajanndgaon Chhattisgarh Rajnandgaon, District : , 4 - Manharan S/o Dayalu Lodhi R/o Village Kohalatola , P.S. And Tahsil Chhuikhadan, Chhattisgarh District Rajanndgaon Chhattisgarh Rajnandgaon, District : , 5 - Bhupat S/o Gaindlal Lodhi R/o Village Kohalatola , P.S. And Tahsil Chhuikhadan, Chhattisgarh District Rajanndgaon Chhattisgarh Rajnandgaon, District : , 6 - The Labour Court Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Additional AG For Respondent No. 1 to : Mr. Roshan Dubey on behalf of Mr. C. K. Kesharwani, 4 Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 18.09.2025 2 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the award dated 27.09.2014 (published on 28.11.2014, Annexure P/1), passed by the learned Labour Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Case No. 265/I.D. Act /Reference/2012. 2. The facts of the case, as reflected from the writ petition, are that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed a statement of claim against the petitioners before the learned Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, pleading that they were appointed as labourers on 01.05.2001 in the petitioners’ department and had been working continuously until 30.05.2001. It was further contended that vide an oral order dated 30.05.2010, their services were discontinued by petitioner No. 2 without any notice. They alleged that their termination/retrenchment was illegal, as they had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. It was further pleaded that they were being paid Rs. 3,000/- per month, had worked satisfactorily, but were not given one month’s prior notice, nor any retrenchment allowance, nor was any departmental inquiry or charge sheet initiated against them. Therefore, their retrenchment was bad in law. 3. The claim was contested by the petitioners herein by filing a reply denying all material averments. It was specifically pleaded that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were never appointed by the petitioners and had never worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. It was also stated that since 1996, the petitioner department had ceased taking any labour work; therefore, there was no possibility of engaging respondent Nos. 1 to 5 between 01.05.2001 and 30.05.2010. Consequently, there was no necessity to issue any notice, pay retrenchment compensation, or hold a departmental inquiry. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Labour Court framed five issues. Both parties adduced evidence and exhibited documents. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court allowed the claim and directed reinstatement of respondent Nos. 1 to 5, without back wages, holding that their retrenchment was in violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court categorically held that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 had proved their engagement with the petitioners, and the 3 petitioners failed to prove that they had not worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are contrary to law and evidence. It was urged that the Labour Court did not appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. According to the petitioners, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 failed to establish that they had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Therefore, the impugned award deserves to be set aside and the claim dismissed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 supported the award and submitted that though the petitioners sought documents from the State Government, the same were not provided. Respondents, however, filed the documents available with them, many of which had been obtained under the RTI Act. From a perusal of these documents, it was apparent that the services of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were utilized by the petitioners, who could not prove that they had not worked for more than 240 days during the period 2001 to 2010. Hence, the award was rightly passed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The case of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 before the Labour Court was that they were engaged as labourers under the Chhindri Dam (also called Pipariya Pond) and had continuously worked from 01.05.2001 to 30.05.2010. They were paid Rs.3,000/- per month. In their depositions, they categorically stated that they had worked for 8–9 years. In cross-examination, they admitted that they had not filed service documents for the period, but clarified that the same were with the department. 7. 8. 9. The petitioners examined Shri K.K. Baghel, SDO, Pipariya Sub-Division, Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, who deposed that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were never appointed in the department. However, he admitted that for canal repairs, labourers were engaged on contingency requirements by oral order and paid wages accordingly. He further admitted that no notice was issued before discontinuing the 4 services of respondents No. 1 to 5, and that muster rolls (Ex.P/1 to P/51) reflected the names of labourers engaged and the work performed. He also confirmed that wages were paid with due acknowledgment, though only photocopies of the muster rolls were produced in Court. 10. On consideration of the evidence, the learned Labour Court held, under Issue No. 1, that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 had worked for more than 240 days in a year, and that their retrenchment without compliance with Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act was illegal. It was further observed that though the petitioners denied respondents’ employment, they did not produce documents in their possession to substantiate such denial. The respondents, on the other hand, produced documents obtained under the RTI Act, which were exhibited in evidence. The Labour Court also found that no one-month notice or retrenchment compensation was given before termination. 11. The findings recorded by the Labour Court are based on appreciation of the evidence adduced. The case set up by the petitioners was a total denial of employment, but the evidence on record established otherwise. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity in the findings recorded by the Labour Court, which are neither perverse nor illegal. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award. 13.
Decision
Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.09.23 10:48:28 +0530 H.Ansari