1 2025:CGHC:17439 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 47 of 2014 1 - Suresh Kumar Kashyap S/o Late Panham @ Panchram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Jarve, Tahsil Balauda Distt. Janjgir - Chapma C.G. 495668, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Secretary, Water Resources Dept, Mantralaya New Seretariate, Mahanadi Gate, Raipur P.O. Raipur Main P.S. Mana Tahsil Raipur Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur 492001, 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 ---- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Mirza Kaiser Baeg, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.04.2025 Heard. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- -2- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may pleased be kind enough in calling the entire records pertaining to Case No. 03/I.D. Act/2013/ 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 impugned Award dated 26.12.2013 passed by the Ld. Labour Court Korba passed in Case No. 03/ I.D. Act/ 2013/ 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. Mr. Baeg, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner worked under the respondents from 01.09.1989 till 31.03.1990 and relevant documents were submitted before the Court below to prove the fact that he worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year but the learned Labour Court dismissed the statement of claim filed by the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner categorically pleaded and proved that he worked under the respondents from 01.03.1986 to 01.06.1992 but this aspect was not considered by the learned Labour Court. He would contend that the retrenchment allowance was not paid and no notice was issued before the discontinuation of the services. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Baeg. He would submit that the learned Labour Court considered Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/4 submitted by the petitioner and according to those documents, the petitioner worked from 01.09.1989 to 30.09.1989, 01.10.1989 to 3 31.10.1989, 01.11.1989 to 30.11.1989 and 01.03.1990 to 31.03.1990 and it is apparent that the petitioner did not work for 240 days in a calendar year, therefore, the provisions of Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would not apply. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the learned Labour Court has considered the documents submitted by the petitioner vide Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/4 and a categorical finding has been recorded that the petitioner could not prove the fact that he worked under the respondents for 240 days in a calendar year and therefore, the statement of claim of the petitioner was dismissed. 6. The findings recorded by the learned Labour Court appear to be reasonable and in accordance with the law, which do not require any indulgence by this Court. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha