1 2025:CGHC:49938 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 203 of 2012 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Thru Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Dist. Kabirdham C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Shri Ajhar Das S/o Sumeri Das Vill. Samnapur, Ps. Rengakhar, Post Rengakhar, Tah. Bodla, Dist. Kawardha C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/State : Shri R.K.Gupta, Addl. Adv. Gen. For Respondent(s) : None ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 07/10/2025 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner / State challenging the award dated 25/02/2012 declared on 12/03/2012 passed by the learned Labour Judge under Industrial Dispute Act, Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, CG in case No.153/ID Act/Reference /2009 by which the reference made by the office of the Labour Commissioner dated 04/12/2009 was considered and statement of claim filed by the respondent was allowed resulting into reinstatement of the respondent without any backwages. 2. Facts of the case which reflects from the records is that the respondent was a daily wage worker engaged by the petitioner / State in the year 1995 and then in 2 the year 2000, the respondent was discontinued from work. Being aggrieved with the action of the State, the respondent raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Commissioner, Raipur, Chhattisgarh and after failure of reconciliation proceedings, the Labour Commissioner Raipur referred the same to Labour Court, Rajnandgaon and the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon after registering the case had passed the impugned award holding that action of the petitioner/State in discontinuing the services of the respondent is illegal as the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘Act of 1947’) was not complied with and the Labour Court directed the petitioner / State to reinstate the respondent within a period of two months in his original post, in which he was earlier engaged without backwages. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent alleged that he was employed as Security Labour with the petitioner in the year 1995 at Kabirdham, Forest division, District -Kabirdham, CG and was retrenched from service by an oral order. His further pleading is that he worked for more than 240 days and was retrenched from service without any reason and rhyme and without conducting any departmental enquiry. Therefore, with the above pleading, statement of claim was filed. The statement of claim was resisted by the petitioner in all aspects and it has been pleaded that the respondent could not prove that the petitioner has not worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Therefore, the statement of claim may be rejected. He submits that the respondent could not prove that the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and the finding of the learned Labour Court in that respect is bad in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Labour Court committed an error in drawing an inference against the petitioner stating that the documents as directed by the Labour Court was not filed. Therefore, impugned award may be set aside and the statement of claim filed by the respondent may be dismissed. 4. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service of notice. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 6. The case of the respondent before the learned Labour Court was that he was appointed in the 1995 with the respondents as Security Labour. He was retrenched by an oral order in the year 2000 with an excuse that no work is required. It is a 3 further case that the post of Security Labour is still lying vacant and the same work is taken by other persons. It is the further case of the respondent that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calender year and his work was satisfactory and all the documents with regard to his attendance and payment of wages are in possession of the respondent. The said statement of claim was resisted by the petitioner denying the averments. Learned Labour Court framed 5 issues and decided the same in favour of the respondent except issue No.4 with regard to back wages. 7. From perusal of the record, it appears that learned Labour Court on 10/08/2010 directed the petitioner herein to file relevant documents with regard to work of the respondent. The petitioner, despite the order of the learned Labour Court, did not file any document with respect to the work of the respondent herein neither any document was provided. Rather the respondent in another case No.9/ID Act/2009 had filed a certified copy of the documents in which his name was reflected. After assessment of the evidence and material available on record, learned Labour Court came to a conclusion that the respondent was working as daily wage worker for 26 days and by this, he used to have attendance of 240 days. It has been further observed by learned Labour Court that despite the availability of relevant documents in respect to the respondents, the same has not been filed. It has also been observed that the petitioner has not complied with the provisions contained in Section 25(f) of the Act of 1947. Neither any notice was executed nor any retrenchment compensation was paid and found that the retrenchment of the respondent was illegal. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it does not reflect that any relevant document with respect to the respondent was filed. From the records, it is quite evident that the respondent was engaged in work with the petitioner. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.M.Yellatti v. Assistant Engineer, 2005 AIR SCW 6103, it was held that the management is duty bound to produce nominal muster rolls for relevant period particularly when it was summoned to do so. The relevant paragraph is reproduced herein below - 18. Now applying the above decision to the facts of the present case, we find that the workman herein had stepped in the witness box. He had called upon the management to produce the nominal muster rolls for the period commencing from 22.11.1988 to 20.6.1994. This 4 period is the period borne out by the certificate (Ex.W1) issued by the former Asstt. Executive Engineer. The evidence in rebuttal from the side of the management needs to be noticed. The management produced five nominal muster rolls (NMRs), out of which 3 NMRs, Ex.M1, Ex.M2 and Ex.M3, did not even relate to the concerned period. The relevant NMRs produced by the management were Ex.M4 and Ex.M5, which indicated that the workmen had worked for 43 days during the period 21.1.1994 to 20.2.1994 and 21.3.1994 to 20.4.1994 respectively. There is no explanation from the side of the management as to why for the remaining period the nominal muster rolls were not produced. The labour court has rightly held that there is nothing to disbelieve the certificate (Ex.W1). The High Court in its impugned judgment has not given reasons for discarding the said certificate. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the division bench of the High Court ought not to have interfered with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the labour court and confirmed by the learned single judge vide order dated 7.6.2000 in writ petition no.17636 of 2000. This is not, therefore, a case where the allegations of the workman are founded merely on an affidavit. He has produced cogent evidence in support of his case. The workman was working in SD-1, Athani and Ex.W1 was issued by the former Asstt. Executive Engineer, Hipparagi Dam Construction Division No.1, Athani-591304. In the present case, the defence of the management was that although Ex.W1 refers to the period 22.11.1988 to 20.6.1994, the workman had not worked as a daily wager on all days during that period. If so, the management was duty bound to produce before the labour court the nominal muster rolls for the relevant period, particularly when it was summoned to do so. We are not placing this judgment on the shifting of the burden. We are not placing this case on drawing of adverse inference. In the present case, we are of the view that the workman had stepped in the witness box and his case that he had worked for 240 days in a given year was supported by the certificate (Ex.W1). In the circumstances, the division bench of the High Court had erred in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact.” 9. Thus, in the light of above discussion and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.M.Yellati (supra), this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned award warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.10.13 16:50:25 +0530