1 2025:CGHC:46762 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 89 of 2018 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Mantralaya, 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)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Kabirdham, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus • Smt. Shivbati W/o Shyam Singh Gond, Village Daihantola, Post And P.S. Kukdur, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner(s)/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Deputy Government Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. H. B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12/09/2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.10.2012, passed in Case No. 140/I.D. Act/2012/Reference, whereby the reference was answered in the affirmative in favour of the workman and an order of reinstatement without back wages was passed. Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 2. Ms. Shailja Shukla, learned Deputy Government appearing for the petitioner would submit that the workman/respondent had filed a statement of claim to the effect that he worked under petitioner no.2 from the year 1987 to 2004 on the post of Safety Labour. His services were illegally terminated in contravention of the provisions of Sections 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also pleaded in the statement of claim that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. 3. She further submits that the petitioners were proceeded ex parte and subsequently an award was passed on 31.10.2008, thereafter, an application was moved for setting aside the ex parte award, but same was rejected by the court below without assigning sufficient reasons. 4. It is argued that the workman failed to establish that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year by adducing documentary evidence. It is further submitted that the Labour Court committed an error of law in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte award; thus she prays for allowing the petition. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/workman would contend that the workman duly proved the fact that he worked under petitioner no.2 for more than 240 days in a calendar year and sufficient documents were produced before the Labour Court. 6. Mr. Agrawal would submit that despite service of summons, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner before the Labour Court, and therefore, they were rightly proceeded ex parte. The application for setting aside ex parte award was also rightly rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 8. The workman filed a statement of claim wherein it was specifically pleaded that he worked under petitioner no.2 from the year 1987 to 3 2004 without any interruption and worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. During the course of evidence, the workman produced copy of muster roll to substantiate his claim. The petitioners having failed to rebut either oral or documentary evidence led by the workman, as they were proceeded ex parte. 9. The record further reveals that the statement of claim was filed before the Labour Court on 20.07.2012 and summons were duly issued to the petitioners. The order dated 31.10.2012 reveals that despite service of summons, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners, and therefore, they were proceeded ex parte. The Labour Court after appreciating material, rejected the application moved by the petitioners for setting aside the ex parte award. 10. Considering the above discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim