1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 173 of 2024 1 - Manoj Kumar Yadav S/o Late Shri Babulal Yadav Aged About 42 Years R/o Village - Kalmitar, Post - Rani Gaon, Div. Kargi Road Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Forest And Climate Change, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh 2 - Deputy Secretary Forest And Climate Change, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh 3 - Forest Officer Forest Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Divisional Forest Officer Division Forest Office, Ratanpur, Post Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Ritesh Giri, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 06/10/2025 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the award dated 13/03/2024 passed by the learned Labour Judge under the Industrial 2 Disputes Act, Labour Court, Bilaspur, CG in case No.29/IDAct/Ref./2019 pronounced on 13/03/2024 whereby the learned Labour Court answered the reference against the petitioner and held that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in respect of reinstatement with full back wages. 2. Facts of the case which emerge from the writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Security Worker on daily wages w.e.f. 01/09/2012. His services were terminated by the respondents w.e.f. 01/06/2017. The petitioner initially raised industrial dispute for settlement dated 19/03/2019 before the Conciliation Officer, Bilaspur for reinstatement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but the dispute could not be settled within a period of 45 days. Consequently, the petitioner directly approached before the learned Labour Court and filed his statement of claim on 09/05/2019 and prayed for reinstatement with all consequential benefits and back wages. 3. Thereafter, his case was registered, notices were issued to the respondents and the respondents filed their reply which indicates that the petitioner has not been able to prove that he has worked for more than 240 days in the previous calender year from the date of his retrenchment. After completion of pleadings and evidence of the parties, the learned Labour Court passed an award dated 13/03/2024 and held that the petitioner has failed to prove his case in respect of continuation of service of 240 days in preceding 12 months calender year prior to date of his termination and held that since the petitioner is not appointed as per recruitment rules, he is not entitled for any relief, claim of the petitioner was rejected and impugned award dated 13/03/2024 (Annexure P/1) was passed by the learned Labour Court which is under challenge before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Labour Court in paragraph 8 of the impugned award found that the petitioner has only worked for 130 days which is factually incorrect. He submits that it is the duty of the respondents to prove that the petitioner has not worked for more than 240 days. He submits that the petitioner continued to work for more than 240 days which is also reflected from the bills and vouchers which are exhibited along with bank statement of the petitioner in which the salary of the petitioner was credited. He, however, fairly submits that the bank statement was not produced before the Labour Court. He further submits that in order to do complete justice to the case, 3 as the petitioner continuously worked from the year 2012 and he has been illegally retrenched in violation of Section 25 (f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, this writ petition may be allowed. 5. Learned State counsel opposes the above submission and submits that the factual finding has been recorded by the learned Labour Court that the petitioner has worked for 130 days. Therefore, he is not entitled to any relief and there is no violation of Section 25 (f) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. From the pleadings it appears that the petitioner was working since 2012 with the respondents. It appears that from the month of June 2017, he was stopped from coming to work. Finding has been recorded by the learned Labour Court in paragraph 8 that the petitioner only worked for 130 days, however, from perusal of the vouchers and also bank statement, prima facie it appears that the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days. However, the bank statement could not be brought before the learned Labour Court. In the interest of justice, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should not be deprived of his legitimate right simply because some documents could not be filed. Even otherwise, perusal of vouchers appended to the records clearly goes to show that the petitioner was continuously working till previous year. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned award and remit back the case to the learned Labour Court to decide afresh and it is also observed that the respondents would produce all the relevant documents along with vouchers of payment including muster roll if so required to prove whether he worked or not for more than 240 days in the previous year. 8. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Labour Court on 25/11/2025. Learned Labour Court is expected to expedite the case and decide the same preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The parties are entitled to produce documents and amend pleadings if so required. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.10.08 11:10:35 +0530