1 2026:CGHC:22514 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 239 of 2024 1 - Managing Director Oriental Steel Re-Rolling Mill. Tedesara, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Surendra Dubey S/o Mohan Prasad Dubey Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Indawani, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Gajendra Prasad Sahu, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Abhishek Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Anushree Mishra, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 13.5.2026 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 06.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Judge (Additional Charge) Labour Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem-fit and appropriate.” NIRMALA RAO 2 2) The facts, in brief, are that the respondent/ Workman was appointed under the petitioner herein in the year 1990 to the post of Watchman. His services were terminated by a verbal order dated 20.1.2014. The respondent / Workman moved an application before the learned Labour Court under the provisions of Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming therein reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The respondent/ workman examined himself and categorically stated that he was engaged by the petitioner in the month of October, 1990 and his services were terminated on 20.1.2014 without following due process of law. It was also stated that no retrenchment compensation was paid, though the workman worked for 240 days in the calender year preceding the date of termination of service. He was cross-examined at length but the witness remained firm. The petitioner/ employer examined Pankaj Singh, Manager, Steel Re-Rolling Mill, Tedesara, District Rajnandgaon who stated in his affidavit that the Workman had committed theft and after a full-fledged enquiry, he was removed from service. This witness further stated that the Company has been closed since 1.10.2019. He admitted that no notice was given to the workman prior to termination of his services. In paragraph 8 of his deposition, he admitted that a complaint had been made before the Police Officials against the Workman but said document does not contain date and mark of seal. It was also admitted that no legal action was taken against the 3 Workman. Learned Labour Court considered oral and documentary evidence and partly allowed the claim directing the employer to pay retrenchment compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- to the Workman. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there were allegations of theft against the workman and after a full-fledged departmental enquiry, his services were terminated. He would submit that the Workman failed to prove the fact that his services were terminated contrary to the provisions of Sections 25F & 25G of the ID Act. He would submit that the Manager, Shri Pankaj Singh proved the fact that a complaint was made against the Workman for his alleged misconduct. He would pray to allow this petition. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/ Workman would oppose. He would submit that though the employer pleaded in the written statement that an enquiry was conducted and thereafter, order of termination was passed but no such document was placed by the petitioner before the learned Labour Court. She would submit that no FIR was lodged against the Workman and that a bald allegation of theft was made against him. She would submit that the Manager, Pankaj Singh has admitted this fact in his cross-examination. She would contend that the learned Labour Court has partly allowed the claim of the Workman on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. 4 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 6) Admittedly, the services of the Workman were discontinued on 20.1.2014 whereas, he was engaged by the petitioner herein in the month of October, 1990. The employer could not lead any evidence to rebut the averments made by the Workman in the statement of claim and the evidence led by him. With regard to enquiry allegedly conducted against the Workman and the imposition of penalty of removal from service, no document has been placed before the learned Labour Court except a self- serving statement, therefore, there was no foundation to establish this fact. Learned Labour Court has categorically recorded a finding that the services of the Workman were terminated contrary to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thus, the learned Labour Court granted compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- to the Workman. 7) Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner herein failed to establish the allegations made in the written statement, no case is made out for interference. 8) Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi