1 2025:CGHC:52175 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 197 of 2015 1 - Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Gandai, District Rajnandgaon, P. S. Gandai, Revenue District Rajnandgaon, Civil District Rajnandgaon. Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, P. S. Telibandha Raipur, Revenue District Raipur, Civil District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Dinesh Sahu S/o Shri Pratap Sahu, Chuikhadan, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yashwant Thakur, Advocate along with Ms. Natasha Khan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. C. K. Sahu, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 27/10/2025 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to an award dated 21.04.2014 passed in Case No.143/ I. D. Act Reference/ 2012 passed by the Labour Court constitute under the I. D. Act Rajnandgaon (CG) by which the respondent was reinstated in the service without any back wages. 2 2. The case of the petitioners, which appears from the pleading, is that the petitioners are a body incorporated under Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972. The petitioners recruited the present respondent as a daily wage employee on 20.04.2011. Further, the case of the petitioners is that the respondent was appointed according to the need and circumstances which might arise, on a daily wage basis. The respondent was appointed in the service in the year 2011 on a daily wage basis for a period of 89 days, in accordance with the order of Joint Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Agricultural Marketing Board, Raipur. After the expiry of the above mentioned time frame, the respondent was released from his duties and was terminated on 17.07.2011. A reference was made by the Assistant Commissioner, Labour to the Labour Court where the respondent submitted a statement of claim. According to the statement of claim, which was replied by the petitioners herein. The learned Labour Court framed four issues which are quoted hereinbelow:- 1. थमप र, प अन व 240 न अ लर ? 2. थमप र व प थ ! रण ! व अन#$% थ अव ? 3. थम प &ई थ (र प पर र थ ? 4. थमप )र*जर ? 5. एव- . ? 3. The parties led their evidence to prove their case. The learned Labour Court decided the issues in favour of the respondent and reinstated him in service without back wages by the impugned award, which led to the filing of the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent was appointed as a daily wager only and as and when the need arose, his services were taken by the petitioners. He was not appointed on vacant post and he has not worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, Mr. Sahu submits that the findings recorded by the labour Court are based on a proper appreciation of evidence. The finding of fact, as recorded by learned 3 labour Court, is that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in the calendar year in issue No.1 seeking to his termination. Therefore, the impugned order does not require any interference. He further submits that the respondent’s work was satisfactory, and he was not given a proper opportunity before his services were terminated by the petitioners. He submits that there is violation of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. From the case of the respondent, it appears that he was appointed with the petitioners since 2009, regularly on the post of Peon and he was being paid through voucher and on 17.07.2011 he was removed. In every month, he worked for 26 days and worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. No retrenchment compensation was paid, neither any enquiry was conducted. The statement of claim was resisted by the respondent on various grounds. From perusal of record, it also appears that the categorical finding of fact has been recorded by Labour Court that the respondent worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year continuously. The Labour Court has also found that there is violation of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. After assessing the documents filed by the respondent, the learned Labour Court found that before the retrenchment of respondent’s services, no charge-sheet was given, and no retrenchment compensation was provided. The learned Labour Court has also come to the conclusion that the petitioners have accepted 30 days’ attendance of the respondent. Thus, relying upon such statement of the parties, the respondent was reinstated. The finding so recorded does not appear to be perverse or contrary to the record. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.10.31 10:48:01 +0530