1 2025:CGHC:6381 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 570 of 2011 1 – Smt. Nirmala Bai, age 30 years, W/o Shri Panchu Sahu, R/o. Village Sankra, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Jayaswal Neco Ltd. through the Manager Village Siltara, District Raipur. 2. - Labour Court, through Presiding Officer, Anand Nagar, Raipur. 3. - State Industrial Court, Garhi Chowk, Raipur. --- Respondent(s) and WPL No. 571 of 2011 1 - Smt. Saraswati Bai, age 30 years, W/o Shri Manharan Chelak, R/o Village Siltara, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Jayaswal Neco Ltd. through the Manager Village Siltara, District Raipur. 2. - Labour Court, through Presiding Officer, Anand Nagar, Raipur. 3. - State Industrial Court, Garhi Chowk, Raipur ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Sudeep Johri, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate. For State : Mr. Pramod Ramteke, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04.02.2025 1. The petitioners filed an application under Section 31(3) read with Section 61 of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960, before the learned Labour Court, challenging their discontinuation from service. The petitioners stated that they had been working with respondent No.1 for more than 10 years, along with the other employees, and that they had been removed from services without Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- assigning any reason. It was also pleaded in the application that no article of charge was issued, no enquiry was conducted, no show-cause notice was given, and no retrenchment compensation was paid. Therefore, the oral order of termination of service is bad in law. Respondent No.1 filed a reply to the application and denied the contents. It was pleaded that the petitioners were never employed by respondent No.1 and that their employment was on a need basis. Learned Labour Court framed issues, the parties led evidence, and by order dated 17.4.2009, the Labour Court dismissed the claim of the petitioners. 2. The petitioners preferred an appeal according to the provisions of Section 65 of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, and the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2010, affirming the findings recorded by the Labour Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would argue that the contents made in the applications by the petitioners were not specifically denied by respondent No.1. He would further submit that the learned Labour Court committed an error of law while recording the fact that the petitioners had worked for 240 days in a calendar year, even though no issue in this regard was framed by the learned Labour Court. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Labour Court on this issue was erroneous. He would further contend that respondent No.1 failed to prove the fact that the petitioners were not employed by the Industry. He would also submit that the burden of proof was upon respondent No.1 to prove these facts and that the learned Courts below committed an error of law in shifting the burden of proof onto the petitioners. He 3 would also contend that the petitioners were employees and their services were discontinued without any sufficient reason and without following the due process of law, therefore, both orders are liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. He would submit that the petitioners have not pleaded as to what age they were engaged by respondent No.1. He would further contend that the burden of proof lies with the Workmen to demonstrate that they worked for a particular period with the Industry or Employer. He would also contend that the petitioners could not produce any document to prove their employment with respondent No.1. He would argue that the learned Labour Court framed and decided all the issues against the petitioners and dismissed the claim. He would further argue that the learned Industrial Court had affirmed the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court, and thus, there is a concurrent finding against the petitioners and both petitions deserve to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State would support the orders passed by the learned Courts below. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 7. A perusal of the applications filed by the petitioners would reveal that they were engaged for a period of 10 years, but the date of engagement is not mentioned in the applications. The petitioners have also failed to provide the date of discontinuation of their -4- services in their applications. It is only stated that they were working with respondent No.1 for a period of 10 years and that their services were discontinued by an oral order. Additionally, the petitioners have not produced any document to demonstrate that they were engaged by respondent No.1. While the petitioners were given an opportunity to present evidence, they could not prove the fact of their engagement with respondent No.1. In its reply and evidence, respondent No.1 categorically stated that the petitioners were never employed by it. 8. In the concluding paragraph, the learned Labour Court observed that the petitioners failed to prove that they were employed for 240 days in a calendar year. This observation does not entitle the petitioners to claim their retrenchment contrary to the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Furthermore, there was no requirement to frame an issue on this matter, as the petitioners themselves did not plead this point. 9. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the concurrent findings recorded by the two Courts below, I do not find any illegality in the orders passed by the Courts below. 10.Consequently, these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi