1 - Bhuwal Bind S/o Ram Jatan Bind Aged About 42 Years R/o Neguratej v. 1 - Tata Project Limited And Anr. S/o Through Site Incharge, Seepat Super Thermal
Case Details
NIRMALA RAO 1 2025:CGHC:42098 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 27 of 2015 1 - Bhuwal Bind S/o Ram Jatan Bind Aged About 42 Years R/o Neguratej Singh, P.O. Jigna, R.S. Naroiya Bazar, Distt. Mirzapur U.P., Uttar Pradesh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Tata Project Limited And Anr. S/o Through Site Incharge, Seepat Super Thermal Power Project, Ntpc, Nawadih Seepat, Distt. Bilaspur C.G. Head Office At Suryodaya, 1-10-60/ 3 Begumpet, Hyderabad A.P. New State Chhattisgarh Telangana, 2 - Seepat Super Thermal Power Project, Through Its General Manager, Seepat Super Thermal Power Project, Ntpc, Seepat, P.O. Seepat, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner For Respondent No.1 For Respondent No.2 : : :
Legal Reasoning
Shri Yash Verma, Advocate. Shri Devesh Chandra Verma, Advocate. Shri Anuroop Panda, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20.08.2025 1. The petitioner has sought reinstatement with full back-wages on the ground that he was appointed as a Gas-Cutter under respondent No.1 in December, 2004. It is pleaded that on 19.1.2005, while discharging duties and engaged in erecting a structure for the boiler at the NTPC Power Plant, a heavy iron metal piece fell on the petitioner, causing injuries to his hands, legs, and eyes. He was taken to Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur, where he remained hospitalized for 45 to 50 days. It is further pleaded that he completely lost vision in his right eye and suffered 40% 2 permanent disability. 2. An application was also filed under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, before the learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation- cum-Labour Court, claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs.12,37,966/- along with a penalty of Rs.20,000/-. After physical recovery, the petitioner approached respondent No.1 to resume his services, but he was not allowed to join. Consequently, a complaint was made to the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the matter was referred by the competent government to the concerned Labour Court according to the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the ID Act’). 3. In the statement of claim, the petitioner stated that he was employed under respondent No.1 in the month of December, 2004 and worked till 19.1.2005, and due to the injuries sustained during the course of employment, he could not continue. However, when he recovered and approached respondent No.1, he was denied reinstatement. He, therefore, claimed reinstatement with full back-wages. 4. Respondent No.1 filed a written statement denying the allegations and contended that the petitioner was an employee of a contractor and was never engaged by respondent No.1 directly. It was pleaded that there was no employer-employee relationship between them, and hence, the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement and back-wages was baseless. 5. Learned Labour Court framed issues and held that though the petitioner was engaged by respondent No.1 as a daily-rated employee, but he failed to work for 240 days in a calendar year and therefore found not entitled to claim reinstatement under the ID Act. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is a 3 categorical finding recorded by the learned Labour Court that the petitioner was engaged under respondent No.1 and that he sustained injuries during the course of employment. He would contend that due to the injuries sustained, the petitioner should have been extended the benefit of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court are perverse and erroneous. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that the petitioner was never engaged by respondent No.1 and that no employer-employee relationship existed between them. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim reinstatement or back-wages from respondent No.1. He would contend that the learned Labour Court has recorded findings against the petitioner; therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. He would contend that, as per the instructions, the work assigned to respondent No.1 by NTPC has already come to an end, and hence, instead of reinstatement and back wages, appropriate compensation, if any, may be awarded to the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would support the contention made by counsel for respondent No.1. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 10. Ex-D/1, produced by respondent No.1, which is an attendance register for the month of January, 2005, would show that the name of the petitioner appears at Sr. No.44 and he was paid the salary of Rs.2,724/-. Therefore, the contention made by counsel for respondent 4 No.1 that the petitioner was not a workman engaged under respondent No.1 appears to be incorrect. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner sustained injuries and remained hospitalized for a considerable period. The petitioner produced relevant medical documents before the learned Labour Court, which establishes the fact that he had indeed sustained injuries. A disability certificate has also been placed on the record. The medical documents annexed along with the records of the Labour Court would reveal that on account of the injuries sustained, the petitioner was unable to complete the qualifying period of 240 days in a calendar year under respondent No.1. 11. Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is reproduced herein below: “[25-B. Definition of continuous service. [ Substituted by Act 36 of 1964, Section 3, for Section 25-B (w.e.f. 19.12.1964).]- For the purposes of this Chapter,- (1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman; (2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer- (a)for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than- (I) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; (b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than- (I) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case. 5 Explanation .-For the purposes of clause (2), the number of days on which a workman has actually worked under an employer shall include the days on which- (I) he has been laid-off under an agreement or as permitted by standing orders made under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946), or under this Act or under any other law applicable to the industrial establishment; (ii) he has been on leave with full wages, earned in the previous years; (iii) he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment; and (iv) in the case of a female, she has been on maternity leave; so, however, that the total period of such maternity leave does not exceed twelve weeks. ]” 12. A bare reading of the provision would make it clear that if a workman sustains injuries during the course of employment, such a period is included within the definition of continuous service. It says that a workman shall be deemed to be in continuous service for a period, even if his service is interrupted due to sickness, authorized leave, an accident, or a strike, which is not illegal. Sub-section (2) of Section 25B of the ID Act further provides that where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer if certain conditions are met. 13. Considering the fact that the petitioner could not complete 240 days of service on account of the injuries sustained during the course of employment and that he was subsequently not permitted by the employer to join his services, in my opinion, the order passed by the Labour Court is not sustainable in the eyes of the law. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. 14. Taking into consideration the submissions made by counsel for 6 respondent No.1 that the work assigned to respondent No.1 by NTPC has already come to an end and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent no. 1 is directed to make payment of lump sum compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lakh) to the petitioner. The said amount shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of 90 days from today, and thereafter, the amount shall carry interest @ 10% per annum. 15.
Decision
In view of the above, the petition is allowed to the above extent. Nimmi Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge