1 2026:CGHC:1725 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 157 of 2024 • Nagar Panchayat Chhuikhadan, Through Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Chhuikhadan, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.), (Erstwhile District – Rajnandgaon). ... Petitioner versus • Bisheshar Chandel, S/o Shri Kangla Ram Chandel, R/o Village Budhanbhat, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) (Erstwhile District – Rajnandgaon). ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Aniruddh Shrivastava, counsel appears on behalf of Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Ankush Soni, counsel appears on behalf of Mr. Pramod Ramteke, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 12/01/2026 1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award dated 22.09.2023 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the learned Labour Court Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Case No.04/I.D.Act/2017/(Ref.), whereby the retrenchment of the respondent was set aside and a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- was awarded in his favour. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent, who claimed himself to be employed with the petitioner, filed a claim statement under Section 2- क (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short ‘ID Act’) against DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 his oral retrenchment dated 31.03.2015 before the learned Labour Court. As per the pleadings of the claim statement, respondent was engaged with the petitioner on 01.05.2000 on daily wages. He continued to perform his duties under the petitioner as a labour (cleaning inspector) and was being paid a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month. On 31.03.2015, the respondent was retrenched without any notice or retrenchment compensation. No enquiry was conducted against him, neither any opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. He worked for more than 240 days in the preceding calendar year of date of his retrenchment. 3. The claim statement was resisted by the petitioner, inter alia, denying the fact that the respondent has worked with him. It has been further pleaded in the written statement that he was under a contractor in the sanitary department of the petitioner. It has been further pleaded that after 2010 no muster role was prepared and rest of the averments was also denied. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and respondent. Respective parties led their evidence on the basis of above brought proceedings, the learned Labour Court framed as many as 3 issues. The parties led their evidence and ultimately by the impugned order retrenchment of the respondent was set aside and instead of reinstatement of the respondent, compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- was awarded in his favour. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent could not prove the relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and respondent. He was engaged under the contractor in the sanitary department of the petitioner, and thus, he cannot be said to be an employee of the petitioner. After 2010, no muster role was prepared, thus, it cannot be said that he was continuously working with the petitioner, therefore, impugned order deserved to set aside. 3 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Labour Court has framed as many as 3 issues and the respondent was able to prove by producing the document and exhibiting the same that he continuously worked for more than 240 days from the date of retrenchment, i.e., 31.03.2015 in one calendar year. The finding of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court is based upon the proper appreciation of evidence and material placed before it. This Court in exercising writ jurisdictional under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India may not disturb the impugned order and finding given by the learned Labour Court. Thus, petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The pleadings have been taken by the respective parties. On the basis of above broad pleadings, the learned Labour Court has framed as many as 3 issues, the first issue was, whether the retrenchment of the respondent was illegal. The learned Labour Court has examined the evidence available on record. On the basis of the documents exhibited, learned Labour Court gave a categorical finding that prior to 31.03.2015 in one calendar year, respondent has worked for more than 240 days. The findings of the learned Labour Court appears to be based upon the proper appreciation of evidence and this Court does not find any illegality and jurisdictional error in recording that finding. Apart from this, second issue is with respect to the reinstatement of the respondent. The learned Labour Court instead of reinstating the respondent granted compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. 8. Once the finding has been recorded by the learned Labour Court that the respondent has worked for more than 240 days preceding date of retrenchment, and that to without any retrenchment compensation or notice, 4 the compensation so awarded by the learned Labour Court cannot be said to be illegal or unreasonable. 9. Taking into consideration, the fact situation of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned award passed by the learned Labour Court. Hence, the instant petition fails, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge