1 2025:CGHC:36898 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 94 of 2015 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Public Works, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Sub Division No. 1, Chhuikhadan District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Pardeshi Ram S/o Savatram R/o Village Birutola, P.S. And Tahsil Chhuikhadan District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Duj Bai W/o Pardeshi Ram R/o Village Birutola, P.S. And Tahsil Chhuikhadan District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Daulat Ram S/o Shri Dhanush Ram R/o Village Birutola, P.S. And Tahsil Chhuikhadan District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ganga Ram S/o Ram Biraj R/o Village Birutola, P.S. And Tahsil Chhuikhadan District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 5 - Kushal Ram S/o Shri Sanvat Ram R/o Village Budhanbhath, P.S. And Tahsil Chhuikhadan District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 6 - Arun Singh S/o Shri Ram Ji R/o Village Jhiriya, P.S. And Tahsil Chhuikhadan District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 7 - Prem Lal S/o Shri Tiharu Ram R/o Village Jhiriya, P.S. And Tahsil Chhuikhadan District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 8 - Dinesh S/o Shri Dukhuram R/o Village Jhiriya, P.S. And Tahsil Chhuikhadan District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 9 - Uttam Singh S/o Shri Jhanaku R/o Village Jhiriya, P.S. And Tahsil Chhuikhadan District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 10 - Narottam Singh S/o Shri Guhara Ram R/o Village Jhiriya, P.S. And Tahsil Chhuikhadan District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 11 - The Labour Court, Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners/ State : Shri Pramod Shrivastava, Dy.G.A. For Respondents No.1, 3 to 10: Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : None present though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29.07.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the award passed by the learned Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, Rajnandgaon, in Case No.198/I.D.Act/Reference/2012. 2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the private respondents were engaged as daily-rated employees under the petitioners in 1990, and they continuously worked till 2005 and thereafter, their services were discontinued without the issuance of a show-cause notice and without making the payment of retrenchment allowance. Although an application was moved before the Assistant Labour Officer to refer the matter, no cognisance was taken by the authority concerned; consequently, the private respondents/workmen approached the concerned Labour Court directly under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act, 1947’). 3. In the statement of claim, the workmen pleaded that they worked as daily-rated employees under the petitioners from 1990 to 2005 and thereafter, their services were discontinued without any reason or issuance of orders. It is further pleaded that no retrenchment allowance was paid to them. The petitioners filed their written statement denying 3 the contents of the claim. The learned Labour Court framed issues. The workmen led their evidence, repeating the contents of their claim. They also moved the applications before the petitioners under the Right to Information Act seeking muster rolls, attendance registers and the documents relating to payment of wages, which were not supplied by the department. These RTI applications were placed before the learned Labour Court. The Learned Labour Court considered the oral and documentary evidence and recorded findings that the workmen had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, and their termination was illegal. Accordingly, the Court passed an order for their reinstatement without back wages. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the private respondents were not engaged against the sanctioned and vacant posts; therefore, the order of reinstatement is bad in law. He would further submit that there was no obligation on the part of the petitioners to comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, 1947, as retrenchment allowance was paid to the workmen. He would pray to set aside the award. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondents/workmen would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate, would submit that the copies of the muster rolls, attendance register, leave register and payment register were in the possession of the petitioners/department but were not produced, despite the applications under the Right to Information being moved. He would contend that the learned Labour Court rightly drew an adverse inference against the department. He 4 would further submit that the department failed to examine any witnesses to substantiate the contents of the written statement. He would contend that the private respondents/workmen proved their case by leading oral and documentary evidence. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 7. A perusal of the documents would show that the private respondents/workmen moved applications under the RTI Act seeking copies of the muster rolls, attendance register, leave register and payment of wages register, but these documents were not supplied by the department. Furthermore, the petitioners/department failed to adduce evidence before the learned Labour Court, and therefore, the contents of the written statement remained unproven. The private respondents/workmen adduced oral and documentary evidence to prove the fact that they worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and their services were terminated contrary to the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, 1947. Since the petitioners failed to supply the required documents, the learned Labour Court rightly drew an adverse inference against them. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of R.M. Yellatti vs. The Asst. Executive Engineer, JT 2005 (9) SC 340, has held as under:- "Analyzing the above decisions of this court, it is clear that the provisions of the Evidence Act in terms do not apply to the proceedings under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, applying general principles and on reading the aforestated judgments, we find that this court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman stepping in the 5 witness box. This burden is discharged upon the workman adducing cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of daily waged earner, there will be no letter of appointment or termination. There will also be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus in most cases, the workman (claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before the court the nominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on facts of each case. The above decisions however make it clear that mere affidavits or self-serving statements made by the claimant/workman will not suffice in the matter of discharge of the burden placed by law on the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. The above judgments further lay down that mere non- production of muster rolls per se without any plea of suppression by the claimant workman will not be the ground for the tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the management. Lastly, the above judgments lay down the basic principle, namely, that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution will not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the labour court unless they are perverse. This exercise will depend upon facts of each case." 9. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi