1 2025:CGHC:38941 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 1 of 2017 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya 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, Chhattisgarh 2. The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Bharat Lal S/o Shankar Lal, R/o Village Rengakathera, Tahsil And P. S. Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. The Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners/State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. Government Advocate For Respondent No. 1/Workman : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06. 08.2025 1. The petitioners have challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, under the ID Act in case No. 110/ ID Act/2013/ Reference dated 29.03.2016, whereby the statement of claim preferred by respondent No. 1/workman was allowed and an order of reinstatement without back- wages was passed. 2. The facts of the present case are that the workman was engaged under the SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.08.12 14:15:39 +0530 2 petitioners on 04.04.2008 as a daily-rated employee. He was getting the monthly wages of Rs. 3,000/- per month; his services were discontinued on 30.11.2010 without the issuance of any notice and without holding any enquiry. An application was moved before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, and a reference was made by the competent Government according to the provisions of Section 10 of the ID Act. 3. The workman filed a statement of claim, wherein he pleaded that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year and his work and conduct were satisfactory. It is further pleaded that without holding any enquiry and without the compliance of the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act (for short “ID Act”), his services were discontinued. 4. The petitioners herein filed a written statement and denied the averments. It was stated in the reply that the workman was never engaged by the petitioners, and therefore, the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act would not attract. 5. The workman examined himself and repeated the contents of the statement of claim. He was cross-examined at length, but he remained firm. 6. One Mr. R.S. Rathore, the then Sub-Divisional Officer, was examined by the petitioners and in para 17, he admitted the fact that records pertaining to the years 2008 to 2010 are available in the Office of Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Dongargaon. In para 18, he admitted the fact that the application was moved by the workman under the RTI to provide relevant documents. The petitioners failed to produce any document to prove the fact that the workman was not engaged for 240 days in a calendar year. 7. The learned Labour Court framed issues and recorded findings that the 3 respondent had worked under the petitioners for more than 240 days in a calendar year; the termination of his services was illegal; the provisions of Section 25 F of the ID Act were not complied with, and the principle of first come, last go was also not followed. The learned Labour Court passed the award of reinstatement without back wages in favour of the workman. 8. Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. Government Advocate appearing for the State/petitioners would submit that the workman failed to adduce clinching evidence to establish that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year between 2008 and 2010. He would further submit that the workman examined himself alone, and other co-workmen were not examined to prove the fact of engagement. He would also submit that the learned Labour Court, on presumption, passed the award in favour of the workman. He would pray to set aside the award dated 29.03.2016. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 1/workman, would oppose. He would submit that an application was moved by the workman under the RTI before the petitioners to provide documents with regard to his engagement, and those documents were not provided. He would further submit that the petitioners’ witness, namely Mr. R.S. Rathore, has admitted these facts in cross- examination. He would contend that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 11. Admittedly, the workman was engaged under the petitioners from 04.04.2008, and he worked till 30.11.2010. The workman has deposed that he worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. The evidence led by the workman has not been rebutted by the department. 4 12. The petitioners’ witness, namely Mr. R.S. Rathore, has admitted this fact that an application was moved by the workman under the Right to Information Act to provide relevant documents pertaining to his engagement and payment of wages, but those documents were not provided. The witness further admitted that the fact that the record was available in the Office of Executive Engineer, Water Resource Department, Dongargaon, thus, adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioners as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas & Anr., (2004) 8 SCC 195, where it is held that when the employer fails to produce the relevant records despite admitting their existence, the court is entitled to draw an adverse inference against the employer, particularly where the workman’s oral testimony remains unrebutted. 13. The learned Labour Court appreciated oral and documentary evidence and passed the award in favour of the workmen. Thus, I do not find good ground to interfere with those findings. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant