1 2025:CGHC:46501 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 83 of 2015 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Water Resources Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh 2 - The Executive Engineer, Piparia Project Head Work Water Resources Sub Division Chhuikhadan, Tah. And Post Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh , District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Anand Ram S/o Shri Feruram Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Tekapara Tah And Thana Chhuikhadan Disrict Rajanandgaon Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh 2 - Rewaram S/o Shri Makhan Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Tekapara Tah And Thana Chhuikhadan Disrict Rajanandgaon Chhattisgarh , District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Balkaran S/o Shri Lakhan Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Tekapara Tah And Thana Chhuikhadan Disrict Rajanandgaon Chhattisgarh , District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Inkar S/o Shri Ghasiram Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Tekapara Tah And Thana Chhuikhadan Disrict Rajanandgaon Chhattisgarh , District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 5 - Bhagwani S/o Hiraram Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Tekapara Tah And Thana Chhuikhadan Disrict Rajanandgaon Chhattisgarh , District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh NIRMALA RAO 2 6 - Bisahu Ram S/o Shri Kuleshwar Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Tekapara Tah And Thana Chhuikhadan Disrict Rajanandgaon Chhattisgarh , District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 7 - Guniram S/o Shri Parghaniya Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Tekapara Tah And Thana Chhuikhadan Disrict Rajanandgaon Chhattisgarh , District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 8 - Shriram S/o Shri Jageshwar Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Katalwahi Tah And Thana Chhuikhadan Disrict Rajanandgaon Chhattisgarh , District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 9 - Manohar S/o Shri Ratan Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Gadadeeh Tah And Thana Chhuikhadan Disrict Rajanandgaon Chhattisgarh , District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 10 - Santram S/o Dukhuram Aged About 35 Years R/o Vilalge Baigatola Tahsil Chhuikhadan District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh , District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 11 - The Labour Court Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners/ State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, P.L. For Respondents No.1 to 10 : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11.09.2025 1. The petitioners/ State have challenged the award passed by the learned Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, Rajnandgaon passed in Case No. 96/I.D. Act Reference/ 2009 dated 29.11.2014, whereby the statement of claim presented by 3 the workmen was accepted, the reference was answered in the affirmative and the workmen were reinstated without back-wages. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners/ State would submit that respondents No.1 to 10 filed a statement of claim to the effect that they worked under the petitioners as daily-rated employees from November, 1984 till January, 2005 and their services were discontinued without complying with the provisions of Section 25 of the ID Act. She would contend that the workmen also pleaded that they worked for 240 days in a calender year. She would further submit that the workmen failed to prove the fact that they worked for 240 days in a calender year and sufficient documents were not produced in this regard. It is also submitted that the services of the workmen were discontinued pursuant to an order issued by the State Government and were never engaged by the petitioners against sanctioned and vacant posts. She would submit that the Sub-Divisional Officer, namely R.L. Deo was examined by the petitioners/ State, who supported the case of the petitioners. She would pray to set aside the award passed by the learned Labour Court. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 10 would submit that the workmen filed the statement of claim and examined themselves before the learned Labour Court. She would submit that respondents No.1 to 10 produced copy of muster rolls and attendance register to demonstrate that they worked from 1984 till January, 2005 under the petitioners/ State. 4 She would contend that the petitioners could not produce a single document to rebut the evidence and documents placed on record by the workmen. She would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 5. Learned Labour Court considered the claim of respondents No.1 to 4 and 6 to 10, while the claim of respondent No.5, namely Bhagwani was not considered on account of his own request. The workmen produced muster rolls and attendance register to establish that they worked as daily-rated employees under the petitioners department from November, 1984 till January, 2005. They examined themselves and proved the averments made in the statement of claim. They also pleaded that since the date of retrenchment they have remained unemployed. In their evidence, the workmen deposed that prior to oral order of discontinuation, no enquiry was conducted, no opportunity of hearing was afforded, and even the retrenchment allowance/ compensation was not paid. 6. The petitioners witness in cross-examination, admitted the fact that he does not know the workmen. He also admitted the fact that he is not aware when the construction of Piparia Jalashay was started. Furthermore, he admitted the fact that the muster rolls and the attendance registers belong to the department and according to the muster rolls, wages were paid to the workmen. 5 7. Learned Labour Court, taking into consideration the documentary and oral evidence adduced by the workmen and the facts admitted by the witness of the petitioners/ department, answered the reference in favour of the workmen. 8. Thus, I do not find any good ground to interfere. This petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi