1 2025:CGHC:45571 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 163 of 2016  Chameli Bai W/o Shri Ram Singh Baghel, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Bade Morega, Gudra Marega, Post Teli Marega, Tahsil Tokapal, Civil And Revneu District Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh Presently Residing At New Collectorate Colony I 22, District Kawardha, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Sericulture, Department Mantralaya, New Raipur, Post And P.S. Rakhi, District Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Deputy Director, Silk District Sericulture Gram Udyog Project Center, Jagdalpur, Civil And Revenue District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3. Labour Court, Under Industrial Dispute Act Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 08-09-2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has assailed the award passed by learned Labour Court, Jagdalpur in Case No. 01/ID Act/ Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.09.08 18:15:40 +0530 2 Reference/2011 dated 26.07.2013 whereby the reference has been answered in negative and against the petitioner. 2) Facts of the present case are that an application under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was moved by the petitioner before the Conciliation Officer under ID Act, 1947, Jagdalpur and after its failure, matter was referred to the concerned Labour Court. Petitioner filed Statement of Claim wherein it was pleaded that she was engaged by the respondent–department as a daily rated employee on 01.01.1989 and on account of sickness, she remained absent from 20.06.2004 till August, 2010. It was further pleaded that in the month of September, 2010, when petitioner approached the respondents No. 1 and 2, she was not permitted to resume her services. Petitioner also pleaded she was on leave on account of sickness, therefore she would get benefit of Section 25B (1) of the Act, 1947. Respondent filed its reply. Learned Labour Court after going through the material available on record, answered the reference against the petitioner. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner worked under respondent–department as a daily rated employee from 01.01.1989 till 20.06.2004 and thereafter on account of sickness, she could not continue her services and when in the month of September, 2010, she approached the respondent authorities, she was not permitted to join the services. He submits that petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of Section 25B(1) of ID Act, 1947. He prays to allow this petition. 3 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that petitioner failed to produce any medical document to demonstrate that she remained sick for period of six long years. She further submits that petitioner would not get the benefit of Section 25B(1) of ID Act, 1947 in absence of any clinching material. She contends that this petition deserved to be dismissed. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6) Admittedly, petitioner did not work from 20.06.2004 till August, 2010 on account of sickness. Record would show that petitioner has not placed a single medical document to establish the fact of her illness. Section 25B of ID Act, 1947 deals with definition of continuous service and same is reproduced hereinbelow :- 25B. Definition of continuous service.— For the purposes of this Chapter,— (1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman; (2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer— (a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than — (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and 4 (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; (b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than— (i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case 7) Bare reading of this provision would make it clear that a workman shall be deemed to be in continuous service if their service is uninterrupted or interrupted due to reasons such as sickness, authorized leave, accident, or a legal strike or lockout, provided the cessation of work is not due to any fault of the workman. It is further held that if a workman has not been in continuous service for one year or six months as per clause (1), they shall still be considered to be in continuous service under the employer for the purposes of this provision. 8) Taking into consideration the fact that petitioner remained absent without any authorization for more than six years and failed to produce any medical document on record to substantiate her illness, therefore learned Labour Court rightly answered the reference in negative and against the petitioner. 9) Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a