1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 94 of 2014  State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division General Kawardha, Distt Kabirdham, Cg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus  President, Rashtriya Works Majdoor Sangh S/o Rashtriya Works Majdoor Sangh, Labour Camp, Baldeobag, Ps City Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, Distt Rajnandgaon, Cg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. For Respondent : None, though served Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 08-09-2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner/ State has assailed the award passed by learned Labour Court, Rajnandgaon in Case No. 105/ID Act/ Reference/2008 dated 28.02.2013 whereby learned Court has directed to regularize the services of workman–Garib Singh on the post of Chowkidar with all consequential benefits. 2) A reference was made pursuant to order dated 06.05.2008 issued by State of Chhattisgarh which reads as under :- Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.09.08 14:28:09 +0530 2 यह रिफश श्रमा यक्त का य लय छत्तीसगढ़ श सन, यपु का पुत्र क्रमा का 2495 यपु, दिन का 06/05/2008 का द्वा अधि#निनर्णा य र्थ इस न्य य लय का) प्रेनि+त निकाय गय ह,। रिफश का. अनस/ची निनम्न नस ह, :- : : अनुसूची :: क्य श्र गब सिंस4ग आ. निबसन सिंस4ग, निनवा स स ईपुत निनयधिमानितकार्णा का. पु त्रत खत ह, ? यदि ह त) इस सब# मा अन वाका पुक्ष का) क्य निन:श दिय जा न ची निहए ? 3) Respondent–Union herein filed Statement of Claim inter-alia on the ground that it is a registered union and it represents workmen employed with different departments. It was further pleaded that workman–Garib Singh S/o Bisan Singh was employed by the petitioner herein in the year 1989 to the post of Chowkidar and he worked 26 days in a month and 240 days in a calender year and his services were found to be satisfactory. It was also pleaded that services of juniors to the workman have been regularized by the petitioner but name of petitioner has not been considered. 4) Petitioner herein filed reply to the Statement of Claim and denied the averments. Petitioner stated that respondent–Union has no right to represent the workman as it is not registered to raise the interest of workmen employed under Forest Department. Petitioner denied that workman was engaged in year 1989 by it and this fact has not been demonstrated by filing relevant documents. Learned Labour Court framed the issue and decided it in favor of the workman. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner/ State submits that respondent– Union was not competent to file a complaint to refer the matter to 3 the concerned Labour Court as the workman was engaged by the Forest Department whereas the Union was registered with the Public Works Department. She further submits that the workman failed to prove the fact that he worked under the petitioner for a period of 240 days in a calender year and services of juniors to him have been regularized, therefore impugned award dated 28.02.2013 is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 6) Heard. 7) Evidently, learned Labour Court has recorded a categorical finding to the effect that petitioner failed to produce any document to demonstrate the fact that workman–Garib Singh was not a member of the respondent–Union. The Union is a registered union and it has right to raise the interest of workmen employed by any department. 8) With regard to the contention made by learned State counsel that workman–Garib Singh did not work for a period of 240 days in a calender year, Experience Certificate (Exhibit P/4) would show that petitioner has worked with the Forest Department since October, 1992 and in the Muster Roll (Exhibits P/5 to P/10), name of petitioner is present, therefore the contention made by Ms. Shukla cannot be accepted. Petitioner also failed to rebut the submission made by respondent–Union regarding regularization of services of juniors to the workman, therefore learned Labour Court decided the reference in favor of workman. 9) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the 4 documents adduced by the respondent–Union before the learned Labour Court, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out to interfere with the award dated 28.02.2013. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 10) Interim relief granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a