1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 19 of 2013 1 - Doulat Ram Pathak S/o Ram Kumar Pathak Aged About 39 Years R/o Pandariya, Ps Pandariya, Distt Kabirdham, Cg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Principal Secretary, Govt. Of C.G. Deptt Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Ps Mandir Hasaud, Raipur, Distt Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Chief Conservator Of Forest Aranya Bhawan, Ps Kotwali, Raipur, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Conservator Of Forest Forest Circle Durg, Distt Durg, Cg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division Kawardha, Distt Kabirdham, Cg, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 5 - Sahdev Kurre S/o Jhadu Ram Kurre R/o Samrupara, Pandaariya, Ps Pandariya, Distt Kabirdham, Cg, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate For State : Mr.Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Rajkumar Sahu, Advocate holding the brief of Prateek Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.07.2025 1. The petitioner/workman has challenged the award passed by the -2- learned Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’), Rajnandgaon, dated 07.04.2011 in Case No.30/I.D. Act/Reference/2008, whereby the reference was decided in the negative against the workman and the statement of claim was rejected. 2. The facts of the present case, as per the statement of claim, are that the petitioner has worked with the Forest Department at Pandariya Circle from December, 1998 till 20.02.2000, and his services were terminated contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1947. 3. An application was moved before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the matter was referred by the State of Chhattisgarh vide letter dated 22.01.2008 to the learned Labour Court, Rajnandgaon to decide the following reference:- अनुसूची क्या श्री / श्रीमती दौ लती पाठक क मर पाठक आ० रम क मर पाठक क सेवा नि" से वाध एवा उचिती है? यादिदौ है ती! वाहै निकसे सेहैयाती क पात्र है? और इसे सेबंध म& अवादौक पाक्ष क! क्या निदौ)श दिदौया जा निहैए? 4. The petitioner/workman filed a statement of claim to the effect that in the month of December, 1998, he was appointed against a vacant and sanctioned post of Chowkidar. The department maintained an attendance register. It is further pleaded that he worked every month for 26 days and a total of more than 240 days in a calendar year. It is also pleaded that the muster rolls are within the possession of the department. The petitioner further stated that his services were terminated contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1947, and no opportunity of hearing was afforded. It is also stated that no article of charge was issued, and the departmental inquiry was also not 3 conducted. The petitioner was not paid the retrenchment allowance by the respondents, and therefore, the action whereby services were terminated is bad in law. 5. The department filed a written statement and denied the averments made in the statement of claim. The department pleaded that the workman did not work for 240 days in a calendar year; therefore, there was no occasion to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. 6. Learned Labour Court framed issues, parties led their evidence and thereafter, the learned Tribunal rejected the statement of claim and decided the reference against the workmen. 7. Mr. Dubey, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that undisputedly, the petitioner worked from December, 1998 till 20.02.2000, and this fact is evident from a perusal of Ex.P/2 filed by the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner has examined a Forest Guard, namely Kesahvlal Dhuri, as a witness, who has also supported the case of the petitioner. He would contend that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 were not complied with; therefore, the termination of the petitioner is bad in law, and the learned Labour Court committed illegality while dismissing the statement of claim of the petitioner. He would further contend that the retrenchment allowance of Rs.912/- was paid to the petitioner after the termination of services, and no notice was issued before the termination of services. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ajaypal Singh Vs. Haryana Warehousing Corporation, -4- reported in 2015(6) SCC 321. 8. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Dubey. They would submit that the petitioner was under an obligation to prove the fact that he worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, and the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 were not complied with. They would further submit that the decision was taken by the department strictly in accordance with Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, and retrenchment allowance of Rs.912/- was paid to the petitioner, which is evident from Ex.P/2 filed by the petitioner himself. They would submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 10. In the statement of claim and evidence, the plaintiff has stated that he worked under the respondents from January, 1998 till 14.02.2000 without any break and thus worked for 240 days in a calendar year. It is further pleaded that his services were discontinued on 14.01.2000 without assigning any reason and without holding any inquiry. 11. The petitioner further pleaded that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 were not complied with. The petitioner also pleaded in para 9(A) of the statement of claim that he was again engaged by the department on 10.08.2008, and his name is present in the list prepared by the department for regularization. 12. The department filed a written statement and denied the averments. Para 9(A) of the statement of claim was specifically denied by the department. The respondents pleaded that the petitioner never worked 5 for 240 days in a calendar year. The petitioner’s witness, namely Keshavlal Dhuri, has supported the case of the petitioner. 13. Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 reads as under:- 25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until- (a)the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:[* * *] [ Proviso omitted by Act 49 of 1984, Section 32 (w.e.f. 18.8.1984).] (b)the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days 'average pay [for every completed year of continuous service] [ Substituted by Act 36 of 1964, Section 14, for " for every completed year of service" (w.e.f. 19.12.1964).] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c)notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government [or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.]” 14. A perusal of Ex.P/2 would show that the services of 128 workmen were terminated, and they were paid retrenchment allowance by the department by the order dated 17.01.2002. The name of the petitioner appears at serial No.121, and he was paid retrenchment allowance of Rs.912/-. Neither in the statement of claim nor in the present petition it is stated that the retrenchment allowance was not paid or it was not accepted by the petitioner/workman. 15. An application was moved by the petitioner/workman to produce muster rolls/attendance register to prove the fact that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year under the respondents. -6- 16. A perusal of Ex.P/2 would show that the petitioner worked from December, 1998 till 20.02.2000 under the respondents, and thus, it is apparent that the petitioner had worked under the respondents for 240 days in a calendar year; therefore, the non-production of document/muster roll would not be fatal for the department. 17. In the matter of Ajaypal Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 stipulates conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen, and a workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year would be entitled to retrenchment allowance. In para 22, it is held that it is always open to the employer to issue an order of "retrenchment" on the ground that the initial appointment of the workman was not in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Paras 19 & 22 are reproduced herein below:- “19. Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stipulates conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. A workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer is entitled to benefit under said provision if the employer retrenches workman. Such a workman cannot be retrenched until he/she is given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice apart from compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months. It also mandates the employer to serve a notice in the prescribed manner on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette. If any part of the provisions of Section 25F is violated and the employer thereby, resorts to unfair trade practice with the object to deprive the workman with the privilege as provided under the Act, the employer cannot justify such an action by taking a plea that the initial appointment of the employee was in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of 7 the Constitution of India. 22. It is always open to the employer to issue an order of "retrenchment" on the ground that the initial appointment of the workman was not in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India or in accordance with rules. Even for retrenchment on such ground, unfair labour practice cannot be resorted and thereby workman cannot be retrenched on such ground without notice, pay and other benefits in terms of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if continued for more than 240 days in a calendar year.” 18. In the present case, it appears that the petitioner was not appointed according to the Constitutional mandate; thus, it can safely be held that he was not appointed according to the mandate of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 19. Ex.P/2 would show that the retrenchment allowance has already been paid and thus, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 have been complied with. 20. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ajaypal Singh (supra), the document Ex.P/2 filed by the petitioner himself and the facts of the case, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Labour Court. 21. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha