-1- 2025:CGHC:42934 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 81 of 2024 1 - Smt. Anju Dubey W/o Late Shri Manoj Dubey Aged About 58 Years R/o Pandit Ravishankar Shukla Nagar, Amanaka, Durga Mandir Ke Pass, Raipur, Distt - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Roshni Dubey D/o Late Shri Manoj Dubey Aged About 42 Years R/o Pandit Ravishankar Shukla Nagar, Amanaka, Durga Mandir Ke Pass, Raipur, Distt - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Prabha Dubey D/o Late Shri Manoj Dubey Aged About 40 Years R/o Pandit Ravishankar Shukla Nagar, Amanaka, Durga Mandir Ke Pass, Raipur, Distt - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Akash Dubey S/o Late Shri Manoj Dubey Aged About 36 Years R/o Pandit Ravishankar Shukla Nagar, Amanaka, Durga Mandir Ke Pass, Raipur, Distt - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Smriti Chikitsalaya Through Joint Director And Superintendent, Medical College Hospital, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sudeep Johri and Mr. J. K. Gupta, Advocates For Respondent : Mr. Amit Buxy, Advocate -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25.08.2025 1) The petitioners, who are the widow and children of the workman, namely late Manoj Dubey, have challenged the award passed by the learned Labour Court (I.D. Act, Raipur), whereby the reference was answered against the workman and the statement of claim of the workman for reinstatement and back wages was rejected. 2) Brief facts of the present case are that Late Manoj Kumar Dubey was engaged by the respondent on the post of Driver on 09.04.2008 as a daily rated employee, where he worked till 10.07.2014. On the said date, his services were discontinued by an oral order. The workman pleaded that he had worked for 240 days in a calendar year and that his services were discontinued contrary to the provisions of Section 25(F) of the I.D. Act. The respondent filed a reply denying the averments made in the statement of claim. It was specifically pleaded that the workman was not engaged on the post of Driver and he did not work for 240 days in any calendar year. Both parties led documentary and oral evidence. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court, by order dated 21.09.2023 dismissed the claim. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court, the workman, namely Manoj Kumar Dubey, passed away, and his legal representatives were brought on record. The workman examined himself as PW/1, whereas the respondent examined Dr. Anil Kumar Baghel. In his evidence, Dr. Baghel deposed that late Manoj Kumar Dubey was never engaged as a Driver -3- and advertisements were issued from time to time for the recruitment to the post of Drivers, but Late Manoj Kumar Dubey never participated. He further stated that the workman never worked for 240 days in any calendar year and that his engagement was on a need basis. He also stated that the workman was engaged as a Stretcher Bearer. 3) Mr. Sudeep Johri, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that in the statement of claim as well as in his evidence, the workman specifically pleaded and deposed that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year on the post of Driver under the respondents from 09.04.2008 to 10.07.2014. He would further contend that the certificates and other documents produced before the learned Labour Court clearly reveal that the workman, late Manoj Kumar Dubey, worked continuously for 8 years under the respondents. He placed reliance on Ex. P/4, the experience certificate issued by the Joint Director-cum-Superintendent, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur. He further referred to the recommendations made by the State Officer to consider the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement. The petitioners also filed orders issued from time to time with regard to the engagement of the workman to drive vehicles on the particular dates. He argued that the respondents failed to controvert those documents. He further submitted that no specific issue was framed by the learned Labour Court with regard to the period of engagement; therefore, the finding recorded by the Labour Court in this regard is perverse. He also submitted that the original workman had worked for 8 years and had been paid -4- gratuity to the tune of Rs. 6,61,384/-. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Parmanand Shukla (Dead) through LRs., (2014) 16 SCC 138. He contends that since the workman is no more, the respondents may be directed to pay adequate compensation. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and contend that the workman was never engaged as a Driver under the respondent. He argued that the workman was working as a Stretcher Bearer and failed to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a calendar year. He relied on the evidence of Dr. Anil Kumar Baghel, who deposed that the petitioner was never appointed as a Driver. He submitted that although advertisements for the post of Drivers were issued but the workman never participated in the recruitment process. He further submitted that once a regular appointment was made, the services of the petitioner were no longer required, and hence his engagement was discontinued. With regard to compensation, he would argue that, as the workman failed to prove 240 days of work in a calendar year, his legal representatives are not entitled to any compensation. Thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on the record. 6) The workman, in his statement of claim, categorically stated that he worked -5- under the respondent from 09.04.2008 till 10.07.2014 as a Driver, and his services were discontinued by an oral order. He also stated that after his removal, other persons were engaged as daily-rated employees. In para 3, he specifically claimed that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year. He further contended that the respondent failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Sections 25(G) and 25(H) of the I.D. Act. 7) In the reply, the respondent stated that the workman did not work continuously as a daily-rated employee for 8 years. It was further stated that the workman was working only as a Stretcher Bearer. Further, a perusal of the reply filed by the respondent would show that the respondent failed to deny the pleading of the workman with regard to 240 days of work in a calendar year. The learned Labour Court in para 13 held that the workman failed to prove this fact. The finding of the Court below appears to be perverse in the absence of any specific denial by the respondent. 8) The documents placed on record by the petitioner (Ex. P/1 to P/16) would show that the workman late Manoj Kumar Dubey, worked as a Driver continuously for several years, but the respondent failed to adduce documentary or oral evidence to rebut the evidence led by workman; thus, the contention of the respondent cannot be accepted, particularly when the sanctioned and vacant post of Drivers were available in the years 2008 to 2014 but his services were not regularized. The advertisement was issued in 2013, whereas the late Manoj Kumar Dubey -6- was engaged on 09.04.2008. The Labour Court rejected the statement of claim and decided the reference against the workman on the grounds that (i) the workman is no more and therefore, the reinstatement can not be ordered, and (ii) he was not engaged against a sanctioned post, and all 12 posts of Driver have already been filled up. However, the Labour Court overlooked Ex. R/1, the advertisement issued in 2013 for the post of Drivers, which clearly shows that till 2013, sanctioned and vacant posts of Drivers were available, but the name of the workman was not considered for regularization against those posts. 9) The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Parmanand Shukla (supra), while dealing with the question of compensation to a deceased workman, has held in para 16 as under:- “16. Keeping in view the statement of details of payment of monthly salary filed by the respondents/legal representatives coupled with other material factors to enable this Court to work out a reasonable amount of compensation payable to the original respondent such as the length of the service of the deceased, his age, total length of service rendered, rates of daily wages payable to muster roll employees in the State of U.P. from time to time in the last three decades, and lastly a large number of surviving dependants (8) in the family, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would demand that the respondents are to be paid in lump sum a total sum of Rs 10 lakhs (Rs ten lakhs) by the appellant State in full and final settlement of all the claims arising out of this litigation relating to the service of the original respondent Parmanand Shukla.” 10) Taking into consideration the facts of the present case in light of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Parmanand Shukla (supra), the award dated 21.09.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned -7- Labour Court No.1 (I.D. Act), Raipur, in Case No.11/I.D. Act/ 2015/Claim is hereby set aside. 11) Since the workman is no more, the order of reinstatement cannot be passed. In lieu of reinstatement and back wages, the respondent is directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the petitioners within a period of 90 days. If the said amount is not paid within 90 days, it shall carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim