-1- 2025:CGHC:44292 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 240 of 2017 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Public Works, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. (The Petitioner No. 1 Was Not A Party Before the Learned Labour Court But Has Been Impleaded As Petitioner No. 1 In The Instant Petition As The Proper Course Is To Implead The State Government Through The Secretary Of The Concerned Department.) 2 - The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ashok Kumar, S/o Shriram Ji, R/o Village Jhiriya, Post Chhuikhadan, Tahsil And Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Manohar S/o Jhanakram R/o Village Jhiriya, Post Chhuikhadan, Tahsil And Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - Dhaniram S/o Shri Samund Singh, R/o Village Jhiriya, Post Chhuikhadan, Tahsil And Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ramprasad S/o Shri Dhanuk Ram, R/o Village Jhiriya, Post Chhuikhadan, Tahsil And Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 5 - Santosh S/o Shri Shriramratan, R/o Village Jhiriya, Post Chhuikhadan, Tahsil And Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 6 - Nakul Ram S/o Shri Samund Singh, R/o Village Jhiriya, Post Chhuikhadan, Tahsil And Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 7 - Shiv Prasad S/o Shri Gautriha, R/o Village Jhiriya, Post Chhuikhadan, Tahsil And Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 8 - Deluram S/o Shri Mangatu R/o Village Jhiriya, Post Chhuikhadan, Tahsil And Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 9 - Thirath Ram S/o Ganesh Ram, R/o Village Jhiriya, Tahsil And Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 10 - The Labour Court, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner /State : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General For Respondents No.1 to 9 : Mr. Vibhor Goverdhan, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Anoop Majumdar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01.09. 2025 1) The petitioner has challenged the award passed by the learned Labour Court (I.D. Act), Rajnandgaon in Case No.80/I.D. Act/Reference/2013, dated 31.03.2017, whereby the reference was answered in favour of the workmen and an award of reinstatement without back wages was passed. 2) Brief facts of the present case are as under:- A. The workmen pleaded in the statement of claim that they worked as a daily-rated employee under the petitioner’s department for considerable -3- period as shown in Schedule-A till January, 2010, and thereafter, their services were discontinued in violation of the provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ID Act). B. It is also pleaded that applications under the Right To Information Act, 2005 were moved for supply of the relevant documents before the petitioners like muster roll and attendance register, but those documents were not provided. The workmen filed their affidavits in support of contention made in the statement of claim. Those witnesses were cross- examined by the counsel for the department. C. The department examined one witness, namely Sanjay Gopal Chouhan, SDO, PWD. D. The learned Labour Court held that the workmen worked under the petitioner/department for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Ttheir finding was recorded on the basis of affidavits filed by the workmen and their witnesses, and accordingly, the reference was answered in favour of the workmen. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner/State would argue that the workmen were never employed by the department and in fact, they were employee of a contractor. He would contend that in reply to the statement of claim, the department has specifically pleaded that the workmen were not engaged by the department, therefore, the documents could not be produced before the -4- learned Labour Court. He would further submit that the workmen failed to produce a single document to establish that they ever worked with the department. Therefore, the award passed by the learned Labour Court is perverse. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 9 would oppose and submit that as the department failed to supply the relevant documents, including the muster rolls before the learned Labour Court, an adverse inference was rightly drawn against the department. He would further submit that the workmen, in the statement of claim and in evidence, specifically pleaded and deposed that they worked under the petitioner/department for more than 240 days, and the burden to prove the contrary was on the department, which they failed to discharge. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) Perusal of the record would show that except for the personal affidavits of the workmen and their witnesses, no document was produced before the learned Labour Court to establish that they had worked for 240 days in a calendar year. Though applications were moved before the department for production of the muster roll and other relevant documents, but those documents were neither produced by the department nor by the workmen. Consequently, adverse inference was drawn regarding the employment of the workmen. 6) Taking into consideration the fact that the relevant documents were not -5- produced before the learned Labour Court either by the workmen or by the department and the award passed by the learned Labour Court is based on hypothetical foundation, therefore, the award dated 31.03.2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Labour Court is hereby set aside. 7) The matter is remitted back to the learned Labour Court to decide it afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 8) The relevant documents, such as the muster roll, attendance register, or any other material record including account books, may be produced by the department to establish whether or not the workmen were engaged during the relevant period. 9) As the workmen are presently working with the department in accordance with the provisions of Section 17-B of the I.D. Act, they shall not be disturbed till the final decision is taken by the learned Labour Court. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim