1 2025:CGHC:60117 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 237 of 2016 1 - Shatruhan Dwivedi S/o Late Shri Ganga Prasad Dwivedi, Aged About 40 Years R/o. In The House Of H.S. Seth Chhotapara, Rajeev Gandhi Chowk Near Old Fire Brigade Office Raipur, Thana Kotwali, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Urban Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, 2 - Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, 3 - Incharge Officer, Fire Brigade, Municipal Corporation Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, 4 - Labour Court No. 1 Raipur Industrial Dispute Act 1947, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate For State : Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer For Respondents 2 and 3 : Shri H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate Ms. A.Sandhya Rao, Advocate ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 10/12/2025 Challenge in this writ petition is to an award dated 03/08/2016 passed by the learned Labour Court in case No.07/ID Act/2014/reference by which the statement of claim filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2 2. Facts which emerges from the record are that an advertisement was published by respondent No.2 for appointment on the post of Driver. In compliance of the same, the petitioner made application and he was called for the interview, appeared in the interview and thereafter, appointed on 19/03/2001 as driver. Later on, in the year 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2013, fresh advertisement for appointment on the post of driver was published. The petitioner also made application and he was also called for interview and appeared on the date of interview but he was asked to perform his duty. His work was satisfactory. Neither any charge sheet nor any punishment or warning was given to him. He had become eligible to attain the status of permanent employee. He worked for more than 240 days in a calender year. Since January, 2013 to July 2013, he was not paid the wages. For payment of wages, he moved an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Raipur. Being annoyed, the petitioner was terminated orally from service on 27/08/2013. No retrenchment compensation was paid. He was not given any opportunity of hearing. Later on, a conciliation proceeding was drawn by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Raipur under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’) who made the reference under Section 10 (1) of the Act of 1947 before the Labour Court. Statement of claim was filed by the petitioner inter alia pleading as stated above. 3. The respondents No.2 and 3 filed their written statement and denied the statement of claim. It has been further denied that no advertisement was published for appointment on the post of Driver. No application was made by the petitioner. He was never called for interview. Thus, the application is liable to be rejected. 4. Learned Labour Court on the basis of above pleadings, framed following issues - 1- D;k vkosnd 'k=q?ku f}osnh dh lsokeqfDr oS/k ,oa mfpr gS \ 2- ;fn ugha] rks vkosnd fdl lgk;rk dk ik= gS ,oa rRlaca/k esa vukosndx.k dks D;k funsZ’k fn;k tkuk pkfg, \ 5. The petitioner led evidence. Respondents 2 and 3 did not lead any evidence. Thus, after assessment of evidence on record, learned Labour Court dismissed the statement of claim by the impugned order against which this petition has been filed. 3 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that along with the petition, some other persons were also terminated from service and their statement of claim was allowed by the learned Labour Court. The petitioner has been non-suited only on the ground that he could not prove that prior to 27/08/2013, he had continuously worked for 240 days. He submits that the petitioner has filed document from his attendance register starting from the year 2001 till his termination in the month of August, 2013. Unfortunately, the petitioner was able to exhibit attendance register till September, 2012. Though in his statement before the Court he has stated that he has filed other documents but the same could not be exhibited, therefore, that could not be considered by the Labour Court. He submits that the case of the petitioner from the very beginning was that he was appointed after due process of law and there are sufficient material available on record to suggest that he was performing duty with respondents 2 and 3. Thus, even otherwise, respondents 2 and 3 have not filed any document from October, 2012 till his termination to demonstrate that he was not working during that period. The termination order was passed on 27/08/2013, during that time, the petitioner was working with respondents 2 and 3. Therefore, he submits that the matter may be remanded back to the Labour Court permitting the petitioner to exhibit the unexhibited documents and a direction may be issued to respondents 2 and 3 to place on record the attendance register of the petitioner from the month of October, 2012 to August, 2013. 7. On the other hand, learned senior counsel opposes the above submission and submits that the documents which were filed before the Court has been exhibited and duly considered by the learned Labour Court. It was incumbent upon the petitioner that all the documents which were filed should have been exhibited so that proper adjudication of the documents could have been made. He placed reliance upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.M.Yellatti v. Asstt. Executive Engineer, (2006) 1 SCC 106. He submits that as the petitioner failed to prove the fact that he worked for more than 240 days, the impugned order has rightly been passed rejecting the statement of claim. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. Perusal of record indicates that the petitioner has filed various documents. From the documents, it is quite vivid that the petitioner was working with 4 respondents 2 and 3. The termination order was issued on 27/08/2013 indicating therein that his services is no more required. Though the documents till Ex.P/51 were marked and which includes the attendance register of the petitioner till the month of September, 2012, however, the records indicate that some more document relating to attendance register is available on record which could not be exhibited by the petitioner. Considering the fact that termination order was passed in the month of August and factually prior to that the petitioner might have been working with the respondents but this factum could not be proved on account of non-exhibited documents. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should not be deprived of his legitimate right on account of certain procedural lapse. Thus, this matter is remanded back to the Labour Court, Raipur permitting the petitioner to exhibit documents which are part of record. It is also expected that respondents 2 and 3 would also assist the Labour Court in arriving to the conclusion as to whether the petitioner worked from October, 2012 to August, 2013 and if necessary, learned Labour Court may call for the records from respondent No.2 in respect to the attendance register of the petitioner from the month of October, 2012 to August, 2013. 10. With this observation, this petition is disposed off. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Labour Court on 18/02/2026 and it is expected that learned Labour Court shall decide the case expeditiously subject to cooperation of the parties. The impugned order is set aside. Statement of claim is restored to its original number. Records be sent back forthwith. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.12.17 16:49:19 +0530