1 2026:CGHC:1774 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 204 of 2012 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Thru The Divisional Forest Division Kawardha Dist. Kabirdham C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Bhaiyalal Yadav S/o Kanglu Yadav Tarsingh, Post Baijalpur, Tah. Bodla, Ps. Taregaon, Dist. Kabirdham C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. K. Gupta, Additional AG For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajit Singh, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 12.01.2026 1. The present writ petition is directed against the award dated 21.09.2011 passed by the Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “ID Act”) in Case No. 21/ID Act/Reference/2009. 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the respondent claimed to have been engaged by the petitioner as a Watchman from the year 1986 till 1998. It is alleged that in the beginning of the year 1998, his services were orally terminated without issuance of any order. Consequently, a reference was made by the Labour Commissioner to the Labour Court. Pursuant thereto, the respondent filed a statement of claim inter alia pleading that he had continuously worked with the petitioner from 1986 to 1998 and had completed HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.01.15 16:41:35 +0530 2 more than 240 days of service in each calendar year. It was contended that his oral termination amounted to illegal retrenchment, as neither one month’s notice nor retrenchment compensation as mandated under Section 25-F of the ID Act was paid. It was further pleaded that no departmental enquiry was conducted and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. The statement of claim was contested by the petitioner by filing a written statement denying the averments made therein. It was pleaded that the respondent was never appointed against a sanctioned vacant post of Watchman and that he never completed 240 days of work in any calendar year. It was thus contended that the termination was legal and justified. 3. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Labour Court framed five issues for determination. 4. The respondent led oral and documentary evidence in support of his claim. The petitioner, however, failed to adduce any substantive evidence. Upon appreciation of the material on record, Issue No. 1 relating to completion of 240 days of service was decided in favour of the respondent. Issue No. 3 was held to be in positive. Issues No. 2 and 4 were decided against the petitioner and the Labour Court ultimately passed an award directing reinstatement of the respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving that he had worked for more than 240 days in the calendar year preceding his alleged oral termination. He submits that the Labour Court erred in relying solely upon the oral testimony of the respondent and his co-worker. It was further argued that the reference itself was made after an inordinate delay of 20 years and, therefore, the claim suffered from 3 delay and laches. Reliance was placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha & Anr., (2014) 16 SCC 130, and Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department & Anr., (2015) 15 SCC. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no prescribed limitation under Section 10 of the ID Act for making a reference. He submits that once the reference was made by the Deputy Labour Commissioner and acted upon by the Labour Court, the petitioner could not raise the plea of delay and laches for the first time in writ proceedings. He further submits that the respondent had successfully proved completion of 240 days of service and that the findings recorded by the Labour Court were findings of fact which do not warrant interference, therefore, he prays that the writ petition may be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The first contention advanced by the petitioner relates to delay and laches. To substantiate this submission, reliance has been placed on the decision in Prabhakar (supra) specifically paragraph 44 thereof which is extracted hereinbelow; “To summarise, although there is no limitation prescribed under the Act for making a reference under Section 10(1) of the ID Act, yet it is for the "appropriate Government" to consider whether it is expedient or not to make the reference. The words "at any time" used in Section 10(1) do not admit of any limitation in making an order of reference and laws of limitation are not d applicable to proceedings under the ID Act. However, the policy of industrial adjudication is that very stale claims should not be generally encouraged or allowed inasmuch 4 as unless there is satisfactory explanation for delay as, apart from the obvious risk to industrial peace from the entertainment of claims after long lapse of time, it is necessary also to take into account the unsettling effect which it is likely to have on the employers' financial e arrangement and to avoid dislocation of an industry.” 9. A perusal thereof indicates that as per the pleadings the retrenchment was effected in the year 1998, whereas the reference was made in the year 2009. It is noteworthy that the reference made by the Deputy Labour Commissioner was never challenged by the petitioner before any competent forum. Further, a perusal of the written statement filed before the Labour Court reveals that no plea of delay and laches was taken, nor was any issue framed in this regard. In the absence of such a plea and issue before the Labour Court, this Court is not persuaded to accept the submission of the petitioner on delay and laches at this stage. The second contention relates to the alleged failure of the respondent to prove completion of 240 days of service. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the respondent in his statement of claim categorically stated that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, which was corroborated by the testimony of his co-worker- Kopa Singh. Certain documents were also produced to establish the employment of the respondent up to the year 1993. The remaining records pertaining to the period 1994 to 1998 were admittedly in the custody of the petitioner. Despite the respondent seeking production of such records, including muster rolls, the petitioner failed to produce the same before the Labour Court. Some documents were obtained by the respondent under the Right to Information Act, 2005 which further supported his claim. The failure of the petitioner to produce relevant records warrants drawing an adverse inference. 5 10. In view of the above circumstances, and in the interest of justice, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter requires reconsideration by the Labour Court after affording both parties an opportunity to place complete material on record. Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the learned Labour Court for fresh adjudication. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Labour Court on 27.02.2026. The Labour Court shall be at liberty to call for relevant records from the petitioner including muster rolls and employment records of the respondent for the period 1994 to 1998 and thereafter decide the case afresh in accordance with law. 11. It is clarified that in compliance with the order dated 28.10.2025, an affidavit under Section 17-B of the ID Act has been filed indicating that the respondent was offered employment. Until the final adjudication, no recovery shall be effected from the respondent in respect of wages paid for the work performed by him. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari