1 2025:CGHC:52966 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 124 of 2019 1 - Shriram Vishwakarma S/o Shri Faguram Vishwakarma Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Bharkapara, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon , District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 30.10.2025 1. The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the award dated 04.02.2019, declared on 07.03.2019, passed in Case No. 144/ID Act/2011/Reference by the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.), constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, whereby the claim statement filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings, are that the petitioner was engaged on a muster roll as a labourer with the respondents and had worked from the year 2003 to 2010 without any break. His services were terminated orally on 17.10.2010. It is the case of the petitioner that prior to terminating his services, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him and no retrenchment compensation was paid. Hence, the respondents have violated the provisions of Section 25(F) of HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.11.04 16:45:28 +0530 2 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner’s case before the learned Labour Court was that he had worked for more than 240 days in the calendar year preceding his oral termination, and therefore, he sought reinstatement with back wages through his claim statement. 3. The respondents resisted the claim by filing a written statement denying the averments made therein. It was contended that the petitioner was engaged only as and when work was available, that he was paid daily wages accordingly, and that his services were dispensed with when no work was required. It was further submitted that the petitioner was not a regular employee, and hence, compliance with Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act was not mandatory. Accordingly, dismissal of the claim statement was prayed for. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Labour Court framed the following issue for adjudication: “Whether the termination from service of Shri Ram Vishwakarma, son of Shri Faguram Vishwakarma, is lawful and proper? If not, what relief is the applicant entitled to, and what directions are required to be issued to the non-applicant in this regard?” 5. Both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 6. Upon consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Labour Court held that the petitioner had failed to establish that he had worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding his oral termination. Accordingly, it was held that the retrenchment of the petitioner was not in violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 7. The relevant observations of the learned Labour Court in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the 3 award are reproduced hereinbelow: “4. The second party has filed a written statement denying the averments made in the statement of claim submitted by the first party. It has been stated that the first party was engaged on daily wages as and when work was required, and he was paid accordingly. Upon cessation of work requirement, his services were dispensed with. He was not a regular employee; hence, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act were not required to be complied with in his case. He is not entitled to any relief, and the application filed by him deserves to be dismissed. 5.The dispute referred for adjudication by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Raipur, is as under, along with my findings recorded hereinafter: Reference Findings Whether the termination from service of Shri Ram Vishwakarma, son of Shri Faguram Vishwakarma, is lawful and proper? If not, what relief is the applicant entitled to, and what directions are required to be issued to the non- applicant in this regard? The termination from service is not found to be improper or illegal. The applicant is not entitled to any relief. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The learned Labour Court, in paragraphs 12 and 13 of its award, observed as under: “12. In the affidavit filed by the first party witness No. 1 (first party) as examination-in-chief under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, there is no specific statement that he had worked continuously for 240 days during the period of twelve calendar months immediately preceding the date of termination of his services on 17.10.2010 under the 4 employment of the second party. Similarly, in the affidavit filed by the first party witness No. 2, Shri Ram Yadav, as examination-in-chief under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it has also not been stated that the first party had worked continuously for 240 days during the twelve calendar months immediately preceding the date of termination of his services under the employment of the second party. 13. The first party has produced documentary evidence marked as Exhibits P-01 to P-10. Exhibit P-01 and Exhibit P- 03 are letters issued by the Assistant Public Information Officer to the first party; Exhibit P-09 is an application submitted by the first party under the Right to Information Act; Exhibit P-02 is the list of daily wage employees working under the second party prior to 31.12.1988 and from 01.11.1989; Exhibit P-04 pertains to the order relating to classification of employees; and Exhibit P-10 is an application submitted by the first party to the Conciliation Officer, Rajnandgaon, for initiation of conciliation proceedings. From the aforesaid documents, it is not established in any manner that the first party had worked continuously for 240 days during the period of twelve calendar months immediately preceding the date of termination of his services under the employment of the second party. Likewise, Exhibits P-05 to P-08 are bank account statements of the first party. These documents indicate that wages were credited by the second party to the first party’s bank account; however, they do not establish that the first party had actually worked continuously for 240 days during the twelve calendar months immediately preceding the termination of his services, nor that the wages reflected in Exhibits P-05 to P-08 pertained to such continuous work.” 10. The findings so recorded by the learned Labour Court appear to be proper and are 5 based on due appreciation of evidence. From the material available on record, it cannot be said that the petitioner was able to establish that he had worked continuously for more than 240 days in the calendar year preceding his retrenchment. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Labour Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned award. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. /-Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari