1 2025:CGHC:51177 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 4 of 2021 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Executive Engineer Rural Engineering Services, Division Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Deputy Driector Finance Rural Engineering Services, Development Commissioner Office, Chhattisgarh Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Mohammad Sohail S/o Sheikh Saleem Aged About 29 Years Caste Muslim, R/o Civil Line, House No. G/16, Ward No. 15, Post Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. K. Gupta, Additional A. G. For Respondent(s) : None, though served. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 14/10/2025 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to an award dated 03.06.2019 passed by the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh in Reference Case No.44/ I.D. Act/ 2014/ Reference whereby the reference preferred by the respondent was partly allowed and it has been directed that the respondent be reinstated in service to his previous post without arrears within a period of 2 months. 2. Facts of the case reflects that the respondent, engaged as a daily-waged labourer in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Rajnandgaon 2 Division, District Rajnandgaon, was employed for casual work. This engagement was neither against any sanctioned post nor any vacant post, but was solely on a daily wage/temporary basis. The respondent, as per the petitioners'/State's record, worked on a daily wage basis until their retrenchment/disengagement. Following their retrenchment/disengagement, the respondent filed a Reference Application before the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon (CG), under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Learned Labour Court, considering the fact that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, passed the order of reinstatement on their previous post, but without back wages. Hence, this petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the finding recorded by the Labour Court is bad in law, contrary to the evidence on record, and illegal. He submits that the respondent could not prove by cogent and prudent evidence that for the calender year previous to his alleged oral retrenchment, he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. He further submits that the finding of the Labour Court on issue Nos.1 & 2 is absolutely perverse to the record. He also submits that he was not engaged against a sanctioned or vacant post of Data Entry Operator; therefore, the impugned award deserves to be set aside. He also submits that instead of passing an award of reinstatement, the learned Labour Court could have granted compensation to the respondent. 4. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 6. The case of the respondent before the learned Labour Court, by filing a statement of claim, is that on 15.10.2008 he was appointed as a Data Entry Operator with the Rural Engineering Department, Division Rajnandgaon. Without any break, before his retrenchment he had worked as a Data Entry Operator under the instructions of the petitioners herein. He had worked for 26 days in a month and had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. He was being paid Rs. 5,605/- per month as salary, and his work was satisfactory. He claims to have obtained the status of a permanent 3 employee. On 01.12.2013, by an oral order, his services were terminated. Before retrenching him from the service, he was not given one month’s notice; no departmental enquiry was conducted and he was not allowed to defend himself. No retrenchment compensation was paid, and his retrenchment constitutes an illegal retrenchment in violation of Section 25(f) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “Act of 1947”). The statement of claim was resisted by the respondent by filing their written statement and it has been denied that the respondent was working as a Data Entry Operator in their department. It has been stated that as per need of work, the services of the respondent were utilized as a daily wager, and he was being paid the wages on the collectorate rate. He was only a labourer for the purposes of requirement of law, he has not been appointed in any post, and therefore, the mandatory compliance of provision of Section 25 (f) of Act of 1947 was not necessary, the statement of claim deserves to be dismissed. 7. On the basis of above broad pleadings, the learned Labour Court framed three issues. The first issue was whether the termination/ retrenchment of the respondent’s services is illegal, which was decided in favour of the respondent. The second issue was whether the respondent was entitled to be reinstated to the previous post. This issue has been decided in favour of the respondent, and he was reinstated to the previous post; however, he denied the back wages. The parties led their evidence to prove their pleadings. From a perusal of record and the impugned award, it appears that the respondent has categorically stated in his statement that he was engaged by the petitioner herein as a Data Entry Operator and had worked for more than 240 days in the previous calendar year from the date of his oral retrenchment. He has exhibited documents Ex. P1 to Ex. P 81 C. The learned Labour Court, in its award has considered that as the petitioner was removed from the services on 11.12.2013, it has be seen whether, from December, 2012 to November, 2013, the respondent was continuously worked for more than 240 days with the petitioner. It has to be seen that the document Ex.P-4 was presented before the learned Labour Court, which is an experience certificate issued by the petitioners herein, and the learned Labour Court 4 had relied upon the said certificate to come to a conclusion that he had worked for more than 240 days in the previous calendar year. Learned Labour Court also came to a conclusion that the petitioner herein has not followed the mandatory provision of Section 25 (f) Act of 1947 and also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2010 SCW 897 and Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation reported in AIR 2010 SCW 1357. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the respondent could not prove his case by cogent and prudent evidence and that he was not appointed against a vacant post, but the fact remains from perusal of Ex. P-4 which has been relied upon by learned labour Court, that it appears he was appointed and continuously worked for more than 5 years. Apart from this, it has to be seen that respondent has not filed any document, as observed by the learned Labour Court, therefore the finding so recorded by learned Labour Court does not appear to be perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. 9. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Labour Court could have awarded compensation in light of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Man Singh, (2012) 1 SCC 558. Even if the Labour Court had came to a conclusion that there was a violation of the mandatory provision of Section 25 (f) of the Act of 1947. Instead of reinstatement, the respondent could have been awarded compensation. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not appear to be worth acceptance. From the record is is apparent that respondent was working with petitioners for more than 5 years. The petitioner also given a certificate to this effect and also stated that his performance was commendable. It has also come on record that monthly wages was paid to the respondent. He has also deposed that after he was retrenched he tried to obtain job in different department but failed. Taking into consideration all relevant factors the learned Labour Court has passed the order of 5 reinstatement. In the opinion of this Court such finding cannot be found fault with. Hence, this contention of petitioners’ counsel is rejected. 10. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.10.17 18:14:22 +0530