1 2025:CGHC:36900 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 207 of 2013 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Durg, Distt Durg, Cg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Puna Ram S/o Shri Parasram Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Bhindarwani, Tah Ghumka, Ps Ghumka, Distt Rajnandgaon, Cg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Birendra Kumar S/o Sagun Singh Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Oadarbandh, Tah Dongargarh, Ps Dongargarh, Distt Rajnandgaon, Cg, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner/State of Chhattisgarh : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy.G.A. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shubham Dewangan, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : None appears though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29.07.2025 1. The petitioner/employer/State has challenged the award passed by the learned Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short’ the Act of 1947’), Durg in Case No.12/I.D.Act/2009(Ref.) dated 01.02.2013, whereby the reference made by the State of Chhattisgarh dated 19.11.2009 was decided in the affirmative and in favour of the workmen and an order of reinstatement without back-wages was passed. 2. The facts of the present case are that the respondents/workmen were -2- working as daily-rated employees under the petitioner since the year 1989. Pursuant to an order issued by the State, the services of the respondents were discontinued with effect from 25.02.2000. The respondents stated in the statement of claim that they worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, and their services were governed according to the Model Standing Order. They also pleaded that no retrenchment allowance was paid, and the services were discontinued contrary to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. 3. The petitioner, herein, filed a written statement and denied the averments made in the statement of claim. They pleaded that pursuant to a circular issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, the services of daily-rated employees were discontinued, and retrenchment allowance was paid. It was also pleaded that the respondents were not appointed against the sanctioned and vacant post and thus, their engagement was in violation of the Constitutional mandate. 4. The workmen submitted their evidence on the affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC, and they were examined. The petitioner failed to adduce evidence before the learned Labour Court. The respondents categorically stated in their evidence that they were engaged in the year 1989, and they worked till 2000 without any break. They also stated that they worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and their services were discontinued without affording any opportunity of hearing or payment of retrenchment allowance in contravention of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. 5. Learned Labour Court considered the statement of claim, the written statement filed by the petitioner; evidence of the respondents and 3 documents placed by the respective parties and passed an award in favour of the respondents/workmen. The learned Labour Court issued a direction to the petitioner/employer for the reinstatement of the services of the respondents without back wages. Against the said order, this petition has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondents were not engaged against the sanctioned and vacant post; therefore, the order of reinstatement is bad in law. He would further submit that as the appointment of the respondents was contrary to the Constitutional mandate, they have no right to remain in the service. He would also contend that the respondents failed to prove the fact that they worked for 240 days in a calendar year. He would pray to set aside the award passed by the learned Labour Court. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose. He would submit that no evidence was led by the petitioner/employer before the learned Court below. He would further submit that the respondents/workmen proved their case by leading documentary as well as oral evidence. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 9. As per the statement of claim and evidence, the respondents were engaged in the year 1989, and they worked till 2000. The respondents had produced Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2 to demonstrate that their services were terminated by the petitioner vide order dated 25.02.2000. The pleadings and the evidence led by the respondents have not been -4- rebutted by the petitioner/employer. The employer failed to appear in the witness box to prove the contents of the written statement. The learned Labour Court, after due consideration, passed an award of reinstatement without back wages. Thus, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Labour Court. 10. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha