1 2025:CGHC:5696 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 52 of 2017 1 - Project Officer, I.C.D.S. Pandariya Through Sheela Dhirhi, D/o Alakh Ram Dhirhi, Aged About 58 Years, Posted As Project Officer, Integrated Women And Child Development Department, Pandariya, R/o Ward No. 12, Bairagpara, Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Kishor Sharma S/o Prabhat Chand Sharma, Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No.6, Cinema Line, Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : None. For Respondent : Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Rakshit Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30.01.2025 1. When the case was taken up for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner even in the second round. 2. The petitioner has challenged the award passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Rajnandgaon in Case No. 154/ ID Act/ Reference/ 2011 dated 31.5.2016, whereby the statement of claim of the respondent was allowed and the order of reinstatement without back-wages was Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- passed. The petitioner has taken the ground that the award dated 31.5.2016 is bad in law, as the learned Court below completely overlooked the fact that the respondent failed to produce the order of appointment and the order of termination. It is also stated that the award has been passed by the learned Court below in a mechanical manner without properly appreciating the evidence. Another ground taken by the petitioner is that the burden of proof was wrongly shifted onto the petitioner. Thus, a prayer has been made to set aside the order dated 31.5.2016. 3. Learned Senior Advocate for the respondent would submit that the respondent Workman filed a statement of claim, making the averment that he was appointed to the post of driver in the month of June, 2009 by the petitioner. He would contend that the petitioner worked for 240 days in a calendar year from June, 2009 till January, 2011, and that his discontinuation of service was contrary to the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He would further submit that the employer failed to revert the evidence as well as the documents adduced by the Workman. He would also contend that the learned Labour Court, after appreciating the documentary and the oral evidence passed the award. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respondent and perused the documents present on the record. 3 5. Learned Labour Court has considered the statement of claim, written statement, documents adduced by the parties, and the evidence. Learned Labour Court has recorded a categorical finding that the Workman worked for 240 days in a calendar year in the post of Driver. It is also observed that the Workman adduced evidence, and the employer failed to counter it. It was also held that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the Workman before the discontinuation of service, and that neither a charge-sheet was issued nor an enquiry was conducted. It was also held that neither notice was given nor was one month’s salary paid to the Workman. It was also held that retrenchment compensation was not paid before taking such a decision. Therefore, the discontinuation of the service of Workman was held to be contrary to the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 6. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award dated 31.5.2016. This petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi