-1- 2025:CGHC:4585 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 79 of 2013 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Its Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, P. S. Mandir Hasoud, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No.1 was not a party before the learned Labour Court, but has been pleaded as petitioner No.1 herein as it is necessary to implead the State Government through the Secretary of concerned Department. 2. Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1. Manrakhan Garhewal, S/o Shri Prem Lal, R/o Village Taregaon Durjanpur, Tahsil Bodla, Distt Kabirdham C.G. P.S. Bodla, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Presiding Officer, Under I.D. Act, Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners/State : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondents : None, though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24.01.2025 1) The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- entire records from the court below relating to the case. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold that the impugned order dated 17.02.2012 passed by the learned Labour Judge under I.D. Act, Labour Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Case No. 90/I.D. /2009/ Ref. (Annexure P/1) is illegal and bad in law. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus and quash the award dated 17.02.2012 passed by the learned Labour Judge under I.D. Act, Labour Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Case No. 90/I.D./ 2009/Ref. (Annexure P/1). 10.4 Any other relief, which Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and petition may kindly be allowed with costs.” 2) The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned Labour Court, Rajnandgaon under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in case No. 90/Industrial Disputes Act, 1947/Ref./2009 dated 17.02.2012 pronounced on 11.04.2012. 3) Brief facts of the present case are as under:- A. Respondent No.1 filed a statement of claim before the learned Labour Court/respondent No.2, inter alia on the ground that he was appointed as Watchman (Chowkidar) under the establishment of petitioner No.2 and worked there till December, 1995, thereafter, his services were transferred to a different place, where he worked from January, 1996 till December, 2003. B. It was further pleaded that the services of respondent No.1 were discontinued by the strength of an oral order issued by the petitioners. Respondent No.1 further pleaded that he worked for 26 -3- days in the month and 240 days in a calendar year under petitioner No. 2 and claimed reinstatement with salary. The petitioners appeared before the learned Labour Court and filed their reply. They denied the claim of respondent No.1. C. It was pleaded that respondent No.1 was never appointed to the post of watchman and he did not work from 1996 till 2003. It is also denied that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year. A specific plea was taken that the petitioners did not fall within the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act; therefore, the contention made by respondent No.1 that he worked more than 240 days in a calendar year is irrelevant. D. It is also stated that respondent No.1 was engaged temporarily as per the requirement of work and he has no right to claim regularization and reinstatement. E. Before the learned Labour Court, the workman adduced his evidence. The learned Labour Court framed issues and held that respondent No.1 was not appointed to the post of Watchman against a vacant and sanctioned post; he worked for 240 days in a calendar year under petitioner No.2; the entrenchment of respondent No.1 is illegal; respondent No.1 could not prove that he was not gainfully employed during this period and finally, the learned labour Court passed an award of reinstatement without back -4- wages. 4) Mr. Lav Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that respondent No.1 was a temporary employee under petitioner No.2 and thus, he would not fall within the definition of workman. He would contend that the learned Labour Court committed an error of law in holding that respondent No.1 is a workman and he was removed from services contrary to the provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act. He would further submit that respondent No.1 failed to prove that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year and therefore, the award passed by the learned Labour Court is liable to be quashed. 5) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 6) It is pleaded by respondent No.1 in the statement of claim that he was appointed in the month of July, 1993 and he worked till December, 2003 under petitioner No.2. The matter was referred by the State of Chhattisgarh according to the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the concerned Labour Court on a substantial question that whether the entrenchment of respondent No.1 valid and what relief may be granted to him? 7) Respondent No. 1 appeared in the witness box and deposed that he was appointed in the month of July, 1993 against the post of Watchman and he worked under petitioner No. 2 till 2003. He produced documents Ex.P/1 & P/2 to demonstrate that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year and he was removed contrary to the provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, -5- 1947. Ex.P/1 is a certificate issued by the Forest Guard which states that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1993 and he worked in the department till December, 2003. The Deputy Ranger has also issued a certificate in this regard vide Ex.P/2. 8) The petitioners failed to controvert the documentary evidence adduced by respondent No.1. The petitioners did not examine any witness to prove the fact that respondent No.1 was not appointed by petitioner No. 2 in the department. The learned Labour Court recorded a finding that respondent No.1 failed to prove the fact he was not gainfully employed anywhere, therefore, arrears of salary were denied and respondent No.1 was reinstated in the service. 9) Taking into consideration the facts discussed above, no case is made out in favour of the petitioners. 10) Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim