1 2025:CGHC:11088 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 50 of 2014 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Water Resources Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Naya Raipur P.S. Mandir Hasoud, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No.1 was not a party before the learned Labour Court, but has been impleaded as petitioner No.1 herein as it is necessary to implead the State Government through the Secretary of concerned department). 2 - The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, (Dunda Diversion), Chhuikhadan, Civil And Revenue District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Dukhitram S/o Shri Raruha Ram Verma Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Dunda, Post Mandala, Tahsil Khairagarh, P.S. Khairagarh, Civil And Revenue Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G. , Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Petitioners/State : Shri Sunil P. Kale, Addl. A.G. For Respondent : Shri Deepak Diwaker, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Abhishek Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06.03.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the award passed under the Industrial Disputes Act by the learned Labour Court, Rajnandgaon in Case No.114/I.D.Act/Reference/2009 dated 27.5.2013. SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners/State would submit that the workman failed to adduce clinching evidence to prove that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year. He would further submit that the learned Labour Court committed an error of law while drawing adverse inferences against the employer when the employer failed to produce the attendance register. He would also submit that the workman was under an obligation to prove the fact that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year. He would further contend that sufficient opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioners by the Court below. He would pray to set aside the award passed by the learned Court below. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. He would submit that the employer failed to produce relevant documents, therefore, an order was passed by the learned Labour Court to produce the attendance register. He would contend that the workman proved the fact that he was removed contrary to the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and that he had worked for 240 days in a calendar year. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of R.M. Yellatti vs. Assistant Executive Engineer, 2005 AIR SCW 6103, wherein it was held that the management is duty-bound to produce the nominal muster rolls for the relevant period when it was summoned to do so. The relevant paragraph 18 is reproduced herein below:- “18. Now applying the above decision to the facts of the present case, we find that the workman herein had stepped in the witness box. He had called upon the management to produce the nominal muster rolls for the period 3 commencing from 22.11.1988 to 20.6.1994. This period is the period borne out by the certificate (Ex.W1) issued by the former Asstt. Executive Engineer. The evidence in rebuttal from the side of the management needs to be noticed. The management produced five nominal muster rolls (NMRs), out of which 3 NMRs, Ex.M1, Ex.M2 and Ex.M3, did not even relate to the concerned period. The relevant NMRs produced by the management were Ex.M4 and Ex.M5, which indicated that the workmen had worked for 43 days during the period 21.1.1994 to 20.2.1994 and 21.3.1994 to 20.4.1994 respectively. There is no explanation from the side of the management as to why for the remaining period the nominal muster rolls were not produced. The Labour Court has rightly held that there is nothing to disbelieve the certificate (Ex.W1). The High Court in its impugned judgment has not given reasons for discarding the said certificate. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have interfered with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court and confirmed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 7.6.2000 in writ petition no.17636 of 2000. This is not, therefore, a case where the allegations of the workman are founded merely on an affidavit. He has produced cogent evidence in support of his case. The workman was working in SD-1, Athani and Ex.W1 was issued by the former Asstt. Executive Engineer, Hipparagi Dam Construction Division No.1, Athani-591304. In the present case, the defence of the management was that although Ex.W1 refers to the period 22.11.1988 to 20.6.1994, the workman had not worked as a daily wager on all days during that period. If so, the management was duty bound to produce before the Labour Court the nominal muster rolls for the relevant period, particularly when it was summoned to do so. We are not placing this judgment on the shifting of the burden. We are not placing this case on drawing of adverse inference. In the present case, we are of the view that the workman had stepped in the witness box and his case that he had worked for 240 days in a given year was supported by the certificate (Ex.W1). In the circumstances, the Division Bench of the High Court had erred in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact.” 4. During the course of argument, it was informed by the parties that the workman has been reinstated in service vide order dated 5.3.2025 pursuant to the award passed by the learned Labour Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. -4- 6. A perusal of the record would show that the workman was removed contrary to the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and sufficient evidence was adduced by the workman to prove the illegal retrenchment. The relevant attendance register or nominal muster rolls were not produced by the employer before the learned Labour Court, therefore, an adverse inference was drawn. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Labour Court has rightly held that the workman was removed contrary to the well-settled principles of law. Further, the workman has already been reinstated pursuant to the award dated 5.3.2025, therefore, no case is made out for interference. 7. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi