1 2025:CGHC:16881 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 46 of 2014 1 - Ridhram S/o Shri Bahattar Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Budhwari Bazar Tahsil Distt. Korba C.G. 495667, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. S/o Through The Secretary, Department Of Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Bhawan , Naya Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh 2 - The Executive Engineer, Hasdeo Barrage, R.B.C. Water Resources Department Rampur, Korba Distt Korba C.G., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer Right Bank Canal Division No.5 Jarve, Tahsil Balauda, Distt. Janjgir Champa C.G. , District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Mirza Kaiser Baig, Advocate For State/ Respondents : Mr. Pramod Ramteke, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 11-04-2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- 10.1 The hon'ble Court may pleased be kind enough in calling the entire records pertaining to Case No. 15/I.D. Act/2012/ Reference which was pending before the Ld. Labour Court, Korba. 10.2 The hon'ble Court may pleased be kind enough in quashing and setting aside the 2 impugned Award dated 26.12.2013 passed by the Ld. Labour Court Korba passed in Case No. 15/ I.D. Act/2012/ Reference & direct the reinstatement of petitioner in service with full back wages & other benefits. 10.3 Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioner. 2) Facts of the present case are that an application U/s 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was moved before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Korba inter-alia on the ground that the petitioner worked from 01.10.1989 on the post of Helper and his services were discontinued on 28.02.1995 contrary to the provisions of Section 25(G) of the Act, 1947. The conciliation proceedings failed and thereafter, the case was referred to the Labour Court, Korba on 23.11.2012. The petitioner filed a Statement of Claim stating that he worked on the said post from 01.10.1989 till 28.02.1995 as a daily rated employee and his conduct was found satisfactory. It is also stated that the services of the petitioner were discontinued without assigning any reason, therefore, a prayer was made for reinstatement. The second party filed its reply and denied the averments made in the Statement of Claim. It was stated that the engagement of the petitioner was on a temporary basis; no order of appointment was issued; he was not appointed against any sanctioned and vacant post and no order of termination of services was issued. Learned Labour Court considered the evidence led by the petitioner where he admitted that he was not appointed against any sanctioned and vacant post and no written examination/interview was conducted prior to the appointment. He also admitted the fact that he 3 was paid wages for the period in which he worked under the respondents. Experience Certificate i.e. Document Exhibit P/1 issued by the SDO of the department was exhibited according to which the petitioner worked on the said post since 01.10.1989 but it does not speak about the continuous work for more than 240 days in one calendar year. The Labour Court dismissed the Statement of Claim. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner worked under the respondents from 01.10.1989 to 28.02.1995. He further submits that the respondents failed to produce the Muster Roll, therefore an adverse inference ought to have been drawn by the learned Labour Court against the respondent-department. He contends that the Experience Certificate (Exhibit P/1) was issued by the SDO of the department in favor of the petitioner but it was not taken into consideration. He further contends that the department failed to rebut the evidence led by the petitioner. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner failed to produce documents or lead evidence before the learned Labour Court, therefore, the learned Labour Court rightly dismissed the Statement of Claim. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6) Perusal of the record would show that the Statement Of Claim was filed by the petitioner on the ground that he worked from 01.10.1989 to 28.02.1995 under the respondent-department but he failed to produce any documents in support of this fact. Document Exhibit P/1 would show that he worked under the respondent department on the post of Helper from 01.10.1989 but there is no whisper as to whether he worked for 240 days in one calendar year or not. The petitioner also 4 failed to move an application for the production of the Muster Roll or Attendance Register before the learned Labour Court, therefore, the contention made by Mr. Baig to the effect that an adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the department, can not be accepted. 7) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya