1 2025:CGHC:18563 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 131 of 2019 • Poshan Das S/o Shri Sadhuram Nishad Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Parewadih, Post Dumardih Khurd, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus • Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr Sourabh Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Haneet Kaur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24/04/2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the award passed by the learned Labour Court in the following case number:- Sl.No. Case No. Passed by the Learned Court: Date: 1. Arising out Case No. 138/I.D. Act/2011/Ref. By the Labour Court (under the Industrial Disputes Act), Rajnandgoan (C.G.) 04.02.2019 (declared on 07.03.2019) whereby statement of claim filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 2. The facts of the present case are that a complaint was made by the petitioner 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 petitioner is that he was engaged by the respondent department as daily rated labourer in the year 1999 and he was getting wages of Rs.3,952/- per month. He also pleaded that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year but without assigning sufficient reason and without making payment of retrenchment allowance, the services of the petitioner 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. He claimed the relief of reinstatement along with full back wages. 3. The respondent/employer filed their reply in the case and a specific stand was taken that the engagement of the petitioner was on a need basis. It is further pleaded that as there was no need for the services of the petitioner, his services were discontinued and there was no obligation to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner led evidence. They submitted documents to establish that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year. The learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year. Consequently, the statement of the claim filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 4. Mr. Somkant Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the workmen filed relevant documents before the learned 3 Labour Court to demonstrate that he worked for 240 days but his 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 petitioner. He would contend that the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate the documents and evidence led by the petitioner. 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 petitioner failed to prove the fact that he 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 petitioner could not prove the fact that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year. He would also submit that according to the document submitted by the petitioner himself, the petitioner worked for 25 days in a calendar year and his engagement was on a need basis. He would further contend that the petitioner was not appointed against the vacant and sanctioned post, 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 4 the petitioner, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme 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 petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged as daily rated employee under the respondent on different dates between 2004 and 2010. In the year 2010, his 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 petitioner 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 petitioner failed to produce documentary evidence to establish the fact that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year. The document submitted by the petitioner and scrutinized by the learned Labour Court would show that he worked for less than 240 days in a calendar year. It appears that the engagement of the petitioner was on a need basis. The period for which the petitioner worked in the preceding 12 months as calculated by the learned Labour Court is reproduced herein below:- Appointed as Labour Terminated As per Affidavit, Order 18 Rule 4 CPC 5 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 173 days. 9. As the petitioner was not appointed against sanctioned and vacant post, no documents could be produced to prove the fact that he 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 petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti