-1- 2025:CGHC:18830 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 99 of 2017 Nand Ram Kaiwart S/o Shri Suvan Ram Kaiwart, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Pandariya, Tahsil Takhatpur and Distt. Bilaspur, Civil and Revenue Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1- Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2- Labour Court Bench, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25.04.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records in connection of the petitioner's cases. -2- 10.2 That the Hon'ble court be further pleased to quash the award dated 11.08.2016 (Ann.P/1) passed by the Labour court Bilaspur and remand the case to decide on merit holding that the petitioner has worked 240 days under the Respondent No. land entitle for reinstatement on his post. 10.3 That the Hon'ble court be further pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 to reinstate the petitioner on his post 10.4 Any other order that the Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be also passed.” 2) Facts of the present case are that an application U/s 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was moved before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Raipur, inter-alia on the ground that petitioner worked from 08.06.2008 till July 2010 Labourer (Daily rated employee) and his services were discontinued in the year 2010 contrary to the provisions of Section 25(G) of the Act, 1947. The conciliation proceeding failed and thereafter, case was referred to the Labour Court, Bilaspur on 07.06.2011. The petitioner filed Statement of Claim stating that he worked on as daily rated employee for 240 days as per calender years and his conduct was found satisfactory. It is also stated that services of the petitioner were discontinued without assigning any reason, therefore, prayer was made for re-instatement. The Second party filed its reply and denied the averments made in the Statement of Claim. It was stated that engagement of the petitioner was on temporary basis ; no order of appointment was issued ; he was not appointed against any sanctioned and vacant post and no order of termination of services -3- was issued. 3) Learned Labour Court considered the evidence led by the petitioner where he admitted that he was not appointed against any sanctioned and vacant post and no written examination/ interview was conducted prior to appointment. He also admitted the fact that he was paid wages for the period which he worked under the respondents. Employee register, bank passbook & receipt Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/3 was exhibited according to which, petitioner worked on the said post since 2008 but it does not speak about continuous work for more than 240 days in one calender year. The Labour Court dismissed the Statement of Claim. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner worked under the respondents from 2008 to 2010. He further submits that respondents failed to produce Muster Roll, therefore adverse inference ought to have been drawn by the learned Labour Court against the respondent-department. He contends that the exhibits/evidence (Ex.P/1 to P/3) are in favour of the petitioner but they were not taken into consideration. He further contends that department failed to rebut the evidence led by the petitioner. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner failed to produce the documents or lead evidence before the learned Labour Court, therefore, learned Labour Court rightly dismissed the Statement of Claim. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7) Perusal of record would show that Statement Of Claim was filed by the petitioner on the ground that he worked from 2008 to 2010 under the -4- respondent but he failed to produce any documents in support of his contention. Document Exhibit P/1 would show that he worked under the respondent on the post of Labourer from 2008 but there is no whisper as to whether he worked for more than 240 days in one calender year or not. The petitioner also failed to move application for production of Muster Roll or Attendance Register before the learned Labour Court, therefore, contention made by Mr. Agrawal to the effect that adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the department appears to be incorrect. 8) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim