1 2025:CGHC:16887 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 57 of 2014  P. Hemsunder S/o P. Lachhaiya, Aged About 50 Years R/o Behind Ravishankar Shukla University, Ps - Saraswati Nagar, Raipur Distt. Raipur C.G. , Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus  Director Survey Of India S/o Mukut Nagar, Idgabhata, Near Water Tank, Ps Amapara, Raipur Distt. Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sudeep Johri, Advocate along with Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/UOI : Ms. Anmol Sharma, CGC. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 11-04-2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following relief(s):- 1. That the Hon'ble court may kind enough to call the record of the petitioner. 2. That the Hon'ble court may kind enough to issue any writ/writs, order/ orders, direction/ directions in the circumstances of the case and to quash the impugned order Annexure P-1 and pass an order of reinstatement with full back wages. 3. That the Hon'ble court may kind enough to pass a writ of mandamus and to command the respondent to reinstate the petitioner on his post of Mali with continuity and with all consequential benefits. 2 4. That the Hon'ble court may kind enough to pass any order or direction as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed on the post of Mali on 03.08.1982 and was terminated without assigning any reason on 30.04.2003. He further submits that dispute was referred to the Labour Coourt since conciliation failed between the parties and Statement of Claim was filed. He contends that learned Labour Court failed to appreciate the specific notice which was given to the respondent to produce documents including Muster Roll and Attendance Register and dismissed the Statement of Claim. He prays to set-aside the award dated 12.08.2013. 3) On the other hand, Learned Central Government Counsel opposes. She submits that the learned Tribunal has passed a reasonable order after appreciating evidence led by the parties. 4) Heard. 5) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Director, Fisheries Terminal Department Versus Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda reported in (2010) 1 SCC 47 in paras 15 and 16 held as under:- 15. The respondent claims that he was employed in the year 1985 as a watchman and his services were retrenched in the year 1991 and during the period between 1985 to 1991, he had worked for a period of more than 240 days. The burden of proof is on the respondent to show that he had worked for 240 days in preceding twelve months prior to his alleged retrenchment. The law on this issue appears to be now well settled. 16. This Court in R.M. Yellatti v. Asstt. Executive Engineer has observed: (SCC p. 116. para 17) "17.... However, applying general principles and on reading the [aforesaid] judgments, we 3 find that this Court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman stepping in the witness box. This burden is discharged upon the workman adducing cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of daily-waged earners, there will be no letter of appointment or termination. There will also be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus in most cases, the workman (the claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before the court the nominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register, etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on the facts of each case." 6) Evidently, (i) specific notice / application was moved by the petitioner before the learned Labour Court seeking a direction to the respondent for production of Muster Roll, Attendance Register and other documents ; (ii) a direction was issued by the learned Labour Court to the respondent to produce the same and (iii) respondent / department failed to produce those documents and instead, admitted the fact that those documents were not available. 7) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda (supra), learned Labour Court ought to have drawn adverse inference against the respondent on failing to the produce the documents mentioned hereinabove and passed reasonable order in favor of the petitioner. 8) In view of the above, instant writ petition stands allowed and the award dated 12.08.2013 is hereby set-aside. However, as the age of 4 petitioner was 50 years in the year 2005, thus it can safely be presumed that presently, he has passed the age of superannuation, therefore, instead of re-instatement and payment of back-wages, respondent is directed to make payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- in lump-sum to the petitioner within period of 90 days from today. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya