1 2025:CGHC:47668 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order Reserved on : 10/09/2025 Order Pronounced on : 17/09/2025 Writ Petition (L) No. 120 of 2023 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Public Relation Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh (The petitioner No.1 was not a party before the Learned Labour Court but has been impleaded as petitioner No. 1 in the instant petition as the proper course is to implead the State Government through the Secretary of the concerned department) 2. Deputy Director, District Public Relation Office, Collectorate Campus, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgargh ... Petitioners Versus • Jitendra Kumar Sahu S/o. Shri R.P. Jyoti R/o. Diwantola, Bajrangpur Nawagaon, Ward No. 01, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioners/State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General For Respondent : Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey C A V Order 1. The petitioners/State have challenged the award dated 29.09.2022 passed in Case No. 134/I.D.Act/2007/Reference by learned Labour Judge, Industrial Disputes Act, Labour Court Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), whereby statement of claim was partly allowed Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.09.18 11:16:59 +0530 2 and the petitioners/State were directed to pay monetary compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- to the respondent-workman. 2. The workman submitted statement of claim before the learned Labour Court in the year 2007 for reinstatement and grant of back wages inter alia on the ground that he rendered continuous service for 240 days in a calendar year since 15.03.1994 to 12.05.2006 and before discontinuation of service neither any notice was served nor retrenchment compensation was paid. 3. The petitioners/State filed reply and stated that engagement of the respondent-workman was temporary in nature on account of availability of work and he was never engaged against any vacant or sanctioned post. They pleaded that the respondent preferred statement of claim after 01 year from the date of disengagement. They also pleaded that the respondent was neither engaged nor worked with the petitioners regularly. 4. The learned Labour Court after appreciation of documentary and oral evidence passed an award on 29.09.2022, whereby statement of claim was partly allowed and the petitioner No.1 was directed to pay lump sum retrenchment monetary compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- to the respondent-workman within a period of 04 months. 5. Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/petitioners would argue that respondent-workman failed to adduce any evidence of having continuously worked with the petitioners-department and the learned Labour Court has passed award on presumption. He would contend that the learned Labour Court committed error of law by drawing adverse inference that the services of the respondent-workman were discontinued without 3 following due procedure of law. He would vehemently submit that in evidence, the respondent-workman himself has admitted the fact that he was working on the post of Computer Operator in Government High School, Bilhari since 16.09.2005 till 30.09.2009. He would contend that the statement of claim was filed on 04.03.2008 and at that time he was working on the post of Computer Operator in Government School and, therefore, the learned Labour Court committed error of law while holding that he worked 240 days in a calendar year prior to discontinuation of service. He would pray to allow this petition. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Renu Kochar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would argue that the respondent-workman has placed sufficient documents to establish the fact that he worked under the petitioners/State from 15.03.1994 till 12.05.2006. She would submit that the workman was working to the post of Part Time Peon under the petitioners and this fact is evident from attendance-sheet dated 02.05.1994 till 06.06.2006. She would contend that the learned Labour Court after due consideration has granted only monetary compensation and, therefore, this petition may be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 8. Admittedly, the statement of claim was filed by the workman on 04.03.2008, wherein it was pleaded that he was engaged by petitioner No. 1 as Part Time Peon on 15.03.1994 and his services were discontinued by vocal order dated 12.05.2006. The workman has placed on record muster-roll and attendance register to establish the fact that he worked on the post of Peon from 15.03.1994 till 12.05.2006 4 and those exhibited documents have not been rebutted by the petitioners, though the petitioners had sufficient opportunity. 9. Learned counsel for the State/petitioners has placed reliance on evidence of workman, wherein he has admitted the fact that he worked to the post of Computer Operator in Government School, Bilhari from 16.09.2005 till 30.09.2009. Though there is admission on the part of workman, but the petitioners have not placed any document to substantiate the fact that workman was not engaged with the petitioners as part time peon during that period. 10. This Court cannot ignored muster-roll and attendance-sheet placed on record by the respondent-workman w.e.f. from 02.05.1994 till 06.06.2006. These documents clearly establish the fact that the respondent-workman continuously worked under the petitioners. 11. Taking into consideration the fact that the respondent-workman was working as Part Time Peon under the petitioners; his services were discontinued in the year 2006; he has been paid monetary compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- and he was daily rated employee, who actually worked under the petitioners from 1994 till 2006 and further the learned Labour Court has only awarded monetary compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/-, therefore, in my considered opinion, the award passed by the learned Labour Court requires no interference. 12. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti