1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 104 of 2018  Nagar Panchayat Pusour Through Its Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Pusour, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Madhav Chouhan S/o Prem Singh Chouhan R/o Ward No. 14, Pusour, Tah. Pusour, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Labour Commissioner, Block-3 2nd Floor, Indravati Bhawan New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Lav Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 28-08-2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- 1. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire record of the court below in respect of the impugned orders passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Raigarh. 2. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the award dated 05.01.2017 passed in 16/ID Act/2016(Ref.), order dated 30.08.2017 passed in 10/ID Act/2017(Misc.), order dated 23.02.2018 passed in 15/ID Act/2017(Misc.) and order dated 27.04.2018 (unregistered case) passed by the Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.08.30 10:27:53 +0530 2 learned Présiding Officer, Labour Cour, Raigarh under the Industrial Dispute Act. 3. Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court. An affidavit in support is filed herewith. 2) Facts of the present case are that Respondent No. 1 – workman was engaged by the Petitioner on the post of Peon on daily wages in the year 2000. He worked there till May, 2014, and in that month, his services were terminated by an oral order without assigning any reason. The workman moved an application before the Assistant Labor Commissioner, and the matter was referred by the Appropriate Government to the concerned Labor Court according to the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3) In the Statement of Claim, Respondent No. 1 pleaded that he was engaged by the Petitioner in year 2000 and in the year 2008, Gram Panchayat, Pusour was declared Nagar Panchayat, Pusour. He further pleaded that in the month of May, 2014, his services were discontinued without complying with the provisions entailed in Section 25 of the Act, 1947. The workman also pleaded that the employer failed to comply with the provisions of Section 25 (G) and (F) of the Act, 1947. He exhibited experience certificates issued on 17.01.2005 and 02.10.2008 (Exhibits P/1C and P/2C); the certificate issued by the members of Nagar Panchayat, Pusour (Exhibit P/5C), and the attendance register of Nagar Panchayat, Pusour from October, 2011 till February, 2014 (Exhibit P/7C) wherein the name of the workman is present. 4) Learned Labor Court issued notice to the Petitioner/employer on 09.11.2016, and an advocate appeared for it before the learned Labour Court and sought time to file Vakalatnama and a reply but thereafter, no 3 one represented the Petitioner, and it was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 30.11.2016. Respondent No. 1 examined himself and exhibited documents Exhibits P/1C to P/7C. Learned Labor Court considered the documents placed on the record by the workman and evidence and passed an award of reinstatement with 25% back-wages on 05.01.2017, and the said award has been assailed by the Petitioner in this petition. 5) Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 30.11.2016, and an ex parte award was passed on 05.01.2017. He further submits that after passing of the award, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC was moved, which was dismissed for want of prosecution by the learned Labor Court vide order dated 30.08.2017. He contends that another application for restoring the previous application was moved on 05.10.2017, and it was also dismissed by the learned Labor Court for want of prosecution vide order dated 27.04.2018. He further contends that the workman failed to prove the fact that he worked under the Petitioner for a period of 240 days in a calendar year, and the Petitioner was not afforded sufficient opportunity to rebut the documents placed on record by the workman. He argues that the workman was engaged by a contractor and was never engaged by Nagar Panchayat, Pusour and thus, the learned Labor Court committed an error of law in passing the impugned award and in rejecting the application moved under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC and the subsequent application. He prays to set-aside the award dated 05.01.2017 and the subsequent orders passed by the learned Labor Court. 4 6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 submits that the workman produced the attendance register of Nagar Panchayat, Pusour, as Exhibit P/7C wherein the name of workman appears at S. No. 6. He further submits that experience certificates issued by various authorities from time to time were also exhibited by the workman and those certificates prove the fact that Respondent No. 1 worked under the Petitioner from 19.05.2000 till May, 2014. He contends that despite the service of notice, no one represented Petitioner, and it was proceeded ex parte and a final award was passed. He further contends that the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC was moved by the Petitioner for setting aside the ex parte award but the said application was dismissed for want of prosecution, and the subsequent application was also dismissed for want of prosecution. He argues that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 7) Learned State counsel supports the award passed by the learned Labor Court. 8) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9) Evidently, the Statement of Claim was filed by respondent No. 1, which reveals that he was engaged on the post of Peon on a daily rate basis in May, 2000 and he worked till May, 2014. The workman has produced sufficient documents to demonstrate that he worked from May, 2000 till May, 2014 under the petitioner. The experience certificates, Exhibits P/1C and P/2C, fortify the submissions made by Mr. Lav Sharma. The attendance register also reveals that Respondent No. 1 worked under the Petitioner continuously from October, 2011 till February, 2014. 10) Admittedly, the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 5 30.11.2016, and it never appeared before the learned Labor Court, and later on, an ex parte award was passed on 05.01.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC which was dismissed for want of prosecution. Another application was moved for restoration of previous application but it was also dismissed for want of prosecution. 11) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award and subsequent orders passed by the learned Labor Court. 12) Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya