1 2025:CGHC:18564 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 121 of 2019 • Pramod Yadav S/o Shri Mannu Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Village And Post Dumaradih Khurd, P.S. Lalbag, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner Versus • Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon Through its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents And WPL No. 125 of 2019 • Nihali Sahu @ Nihali Ram Sahu S/o Shri Thukel Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Bhatagaon, Post Bhedikala, Police Station Lalbag, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus • Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent And WPL No. 126 of 2019 • Gopi Yadav S/o Shri Shriram Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Mohara, Ward No. 41, Police Station Lalbag, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus • Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent And WPL No. 127 of 2019 • Satish Yadav @ Satish Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Paltan Yadav, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village - Mohara, Ward No. 41, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 Versus • Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents And WPL No. 128 of 2019 • Bhuneshwar Nishad S/o Shri Jaitram Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Mohara, Ward No. 41, P.S. Lalbag, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus • Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon, Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent And WPL No. 129 of 2019 • Ramshankar S/o Shri Durgaram Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Pendri, Ward No. 18, P.S. Lalbag, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus • Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent And WPL No. 130 of 2019 • Praveen S/o Shri Shobharam Meshram Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Mohara, Ward No. 41 P.S. Lal Bag, Tahsil And District Rajnandagaon, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus • Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Petitioners : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sourabh Sharma and Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24/04/2025 1. The petitioners have challenged the award passed by the learned 3 Labour Court in the following case numbers:- WPL No. 121/2019 Sl.No. Case No: Passed by the Learned Court: Date: 1. Arising out Case No. 113/I.D. Act/2011/Ref. By the Labour Court (under the Industrial Disputes Act) Rajanandgaon (C.G) 01.02.2019 (declared on 08.04.2019) WPL No. 125/2019 2. Arising out Case No. 121/I.D. Act/2011/Ref. By the Labour Court (under the Industrial Disputes Act) Rajanandgaon (C.G) 02.02.2019 (declared on 06.03.2019) WPL No. 126/2019 3. Arising out Case No. 115/I.D. Act/2011/Ref. By the Labour Court (under the Industrial Disputes Act) Rajanandgaon (C.G) 02.02.2019 (declared on 06.03.2019) WPL No. 127/2019 4. Arising out Case No. 127/I.D. Act/2011/Ref. By the Labour Court (under the Industrial Disputes Act) Rajanandgaon (C.G) 05.02.2019 (declared on 06.03.2019) WPL No. 128/2019 5. Arising out Case No. 116/I.D. Act/2011/Ref. By the Labour Court (under the Industrial Disputes Act) Rajanandgaon (C.G) 02.02.2019 (declared on 06.03.2019) WPL No. 129/2019 6. Arising out Case No. 107/I.D. Act/2011/Ref. By the Labour Court (under the Industrial Disputes Act) Rajanandgaon (C.G) 01.02.2019 (declared on 08.04.2019) And WPL No. 130/2019 7. Arising out Case No. 145/I.D. Act/2011/Ref. By the Labour Court (under the Industrial Disputes Act) Rajanandgaon (C.G) 02.02.2019 (declared on 06.03.2019) whereby statements of claim filed by the petitioners were dismissed. 2. The facts of the present case are that a complaint was made by the 4 petitioners before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and thereafter the appropriate government referred the matter according to the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act on various dates in the year 2011. Sum and substance of the statement of claim filed by the petitioners are that they were engaged by the respondent department as daily rated labourers in the year 1999 and they were getting wages of Rs.3,952/- per month. They also pleaded that they worked for 240 days in a calendar year but without assigning sufficient reason and without making payment of retrenchment allowance, the services of the petitioners were discontinued by the department. It is also pleaded that the respondent failed to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. They claimed the relief of reinstatement along with full back wages. 3. The respondent/employer filed their reply in all cases and a specific stand was taken that the engagement of the petitioners was on a need basis. It is further pleaded that as there was no need for the services of the petitioners, their services were discontinued and there was no obligation to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioners led evidence. They submitted documents to establish that they worked for 240 days in a calendar year. The learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioners failed to establish that they worked for 240 days in a calendar year. Consequently, the statement of the claim filed by the petitioners was dismissed. 4. Mr. Somkant Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would argue that the workmen filed relevant documents before the learned Labour Court to demonstrate that they worked for 240 days 5 but their services were discontinued contrary to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He would further submit that no opportunity of hearing was afforded by the respondent and no enquiry was conducted. It is also argued that retrenchment allowance according to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is not fair and no notice or one month salary in lieu of notice was provided to the petitioners. He would contend that the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate the documents and evidence led by the petitioners. It is also argued by Mr. Somkant Verma that the respondent filed the reply but failed to lead evidence, which is fatal for the employer. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioners failed to prove the fact that they worked for 240 days in a calendar year. He would further submit that the learned Labour Court had minutely examined the documents and recorded findings that the petitioners could not prove the fact that they worked for 240 days in a calendar year. He would also submit that according to the document submitted by the petitioners themselves, most of the petitioners worked for 25-26 days in a calendar year and their engagement was on a need basis. He would further contend that the petitioners were not appointed against the vacant and sanctioned posts, therefore, there was no need to issue any specific order for discontinuation of services. He would also contend that the learned Labour Court relying on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of M.P. and Others vs. Arjunlal Razak reported in (2006) 2 SCC 711 dismissed the statement of claim presented by the petitioners, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme 6 Court has held that the onus to prove the fact that a workman has worked for 240 days in a calendar year lies on workmen himself. He would state that the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. Admittedly, the petitioners were engaged as daily rated employees under the respondent on different dates between 2007 and 2010. In the year 2010, their services were discontinued. The application was moved before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the appropriate government referred the matter according to the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Before the learned Labour Court, the petitioners filed the statement of claim along with documents and also adduced evidence. The respondent filed its reply but failed to lead evidence. It is a well-settled principle of law that the petitioners or plaintiffs have to prove their case and they cannot take shelter on the shoulders of the respondents/defendants. 8. In the present case, the petitioners failed to produce documentary evidence to establish the fact that they worked for 240 days in a calendar year. The document submitted by the petitioners and scrutinized by the learned Labour Court would show that they worked for less than 240 days in a calendar year. It appears that the engagement of the petitioners was on a need basis. The period for which the petitioners worked in the preceding 12 months as calculated by the learned Labour Court is reproduced herein below:- Petitioner – Pramod Yadav in WPL No. 121/2019 Appointed as Labour Terminated As per Affidavit, Order 18 Rule 4 CPC 2007-2010 17.10.2010 11.02.2010 - 13.02.2010 = 03 days 7 15.02.2010 - 20.02.2010 = 06 days 22.02.2010 - 27.02.2010= 06 days 01.03.2010 - 02.03.2010 = 02 days 12.04.2010 - 17.04.2010= 06 days 19.04.2010 - 21.04.2010= 03 days He worked for: 26 days Petitioner – Nihali Sahu @ Nihali Ram Sahu in WPL No. 125/2019 Appointed as Labour Terminated As per Affidavit, Order 18 Rule 4 CPC 1999-2010 17.10.2010 He worked for : 25 days in the month of October, 2004 Petitioner – Gopi Yadav in WPL No. 126/2019 Appointed as Labour Terminated As per Affidavit, Order 18 Rule 4 CPC 2004-2010 17.10.2010 He worked for : 25 days in the month of October, 2004 Petitioner – Satish Yadav @ Satish Kumar Yadav in WPL No. 127/2019 Appointed as Labour Terminated As per Affidavit, Order 18 Rule 4 CPC 2004-2010 17.10.2010 He worked for : 25 days in the month of October, 2004 As per para-13 of the order, he worked for 153 days. Petitioner – Bhuneshwar Nishad in WPL No. 128/2019 Appointed as Labour Terminated As per Affidavit, Order 18 Rule 4 CPC 2004-2010 17.10.2010 He worked for : 25 days in the month of October, 2004 Petitioner – Ramshankar in WPL No. 129/2019 Appointed as Labour Terminated As per Affidavit, Order 18 Rule 4 CPC 2004-2010 17.10.2010 He worked for : 25 days in the month of October, 2004 And 8 Petitioner – Praveen in WPL No. 130/2019 Appointed as Labour Terminated As per Affidavit, Order 18 Rule 4 CPC 2003-2010 17.10.2010 He worked for : 25 days in the month of October, 2004 9. As the petitioners were not appointed against sanctioned and vacant posts, no documents could be produced to prove the fact that they worked for 240 days, there was no requirement for the respondent to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 10. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arjunlal Razak (supra), in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. 11. Consequently, these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. No costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti