1 2026:CGHC:20007 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 190 of 2023  Nand Kumar Vishwakarma S/o Shri Shyamata Prasad Vishwakarma Aged About 54 Years R/o Village/ Post- Mohda, Div- Kargiroad Kota,, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Forest And Climate Change, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Deputy Secretary Forest And Climate Change, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Forest Development Corporation Through Manager, Kota Pandariya Project, Post- Mangla, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ritesh Giri, Advocate For State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 29.04.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by learned Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case No. 35/ID Act, Reference/2019 dated 5.10.2023 whereby reference was answered in negative and the statement of claim filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.05.01 15:20:21 +0530 2 2) Facts of present case as per statement of claim are that petitioner was appointed as daily rated employee on the post of Chowkidar under respondent No. 3 in July, 2010 and his services were discontinued in October, 2018 contrary to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter to be referred as ‘Act of 1947’]. Conciliation proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and matter was referred to learned Labour Court under Section 10 of Act of 1947. 3) In the statement of claim, petitioner pleaded that he worked continuously from July, 2010 till October, 2018 under respondent No. 3 prior to termination of his services. Respondent No. 3 filed reply and pleaded that engagement of petitioner was contingent in nature. Petitioner examined himself and exhibited bank pass-book to establish that he worked under respondent No. 3 continuously for period of eight years whereas respondent No. 3 examined Chuneshwari Aditi Shivne, Deputy Divisional Manager, who deposed that engagement of the workman was temporary in nature and he never worked for 240 days continuously in a calender year preceding the date of termination. Learned Labour Court held that workman failed to establish that he worked continuously for period of 240 days in a calender year preceding the date of termination and dismissed the statement of claim. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner exhibited bank pass-book to demonstrate that he worked continuously for 3 more than 240 days in a calender year and wages were being paid to him regularly in the bank account directly. He further submits that respondent No. 3 failed to adduce documentary evidence to substantiate that workman was never engaged by it or the nature of engagement was temporary. He prays to allow this petition. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submits that respondent No. 3 examined its witness who proved that workman did not work 240 days in a calender year and learned Labour Court rightly rejected the claim of petitioner. 6) Learned State counsel would support the contention made by Mr. Ahluwalia. 7) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 8) It has been well settled legal position that for getting protection of Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is incumbent on the part of the workman to plea and prove the continuous 240 days service preceding date of termination. Section 25(B) defines continuous service and Section 25 provides grant of retrenchment compensation to the workman. 9) Sections 25-B and 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act are extracted below:- "25B. Definition of continuous service. For the purposes of this Chapter,-- 4 (1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman; (2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-- (a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-- (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; (b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than- (i) ninety- five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case. 25F. 25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.-No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-- (a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice: (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay 2 for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3 or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]. 5 10) Evidently, no documentary evidence was placed on record by the petitioner to substantiate the pleading that he has worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months before the date of termination. The self- serving statement of the petitioner and the bank pass-book cannot establish that he worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months before the date of termination which is essential for getting protection under Sections 25(f) of the Industrial Dispute Act. 11) Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Municipal Corporation, Faridabad vs. Siri Niwas, reported in 2004(8) SCC 195 has held as under:- "14. For the said purpose it is necessary to notice the definition of 'Continuous Service' as contained in Section 25-B of the Act. In terms of sub-Section (2) of Section 25- B that if a workman during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer 240 days within a period of one year, he will be deemed to be in continuous service. By reason of the said provision, thus, a legal fiction is created. The retrenchment of the respondent took place on 17.5.1995. For the purpose of calculating as to whether he had worked for a period of 240 days within one year or not, it was, therefore, necessary for the Tribunal to arrive at a finding of fact that during the period between 5.8.1994 to 16.5.1995 he had worked for a period of more than 240 days. As noticed hereinbefore, the burden of proof was on the workman. From the Award it does not appear that the workman adduced any evidence whatsoever in support of his contention that he complied with the requirements of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Apart from examining himself in support of his contention he did not produce or call for any document from the office of the Appellant herein including the muster rolls. It is improbable that a person working in a Local Authority would not be in possession of any documentary evidence to support his claim before the Tribunal. Apart from muster rolls he could have shown the terms and conditions of his offer of appointment and 6 the remuneration received by him for working during the aforementioned period. He even did not examine any other witness in support of his case." 12) From the above legal position and considering the facts of case, it is quite clear that the petitioner has not produced any cogent document to demonstrate that he has worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months except bank pass-book therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the order dated 5.10.2023 passed by the learned Labour Court which warrants interference by this Court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a