1 2026:CGHC:23115 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 38 of 2025 1 - Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Through Registrar, Krishak Nagar, Village Jora, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Ramdas Baghel S/o Shri Budharu Baghel Aged About 49 Years R/o Krishak Nagar, Village Jora, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Labour Court No. 01 (Under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947) Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Deepali Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 15.05.2026 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 14.12.2022 passed by the learned Labour Court, Raipur (C.G.) under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act, 1947') in Case No.12/I.D.Act/2022/Reference, whereby, the order with regard to termination of services of workman dated 11.06.2019 has been set aside. 3. The facts in brief are that respondent No.1/workman was initially engaged with the petitioner as daily wage labourer on 10.06.1993 and subsequently, he was appointed as Security Guard on 01.10.2004 on fixed pay scale of Rs.8600/- per month. He worked for 27 years and thereafter, his services were terminated vide order dated 11.06.2019 without holding any inquiry and without affording opportunity of hearing. 2 An application was moved before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and matter was referred by the competent Government to the concerned Labour Court according to the provisions of Section 10 of the Act of 1947. 4. The workman filed statement of claim, wherein, he pleaded that he worked for long 27 years and his services were terminated contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1947. It is also pleaded that he worked for 240 days in a calender year preceding the date of termination. The respondent No.1/workman examined himself and repeated the contents of the statement of claim. He examined a witness namely Ram Khilawan, who supported his case. 5. The petitioner herein was proceeded ex parte on 26.11.2022; no reply was filed and no witness was examined. Learned Labour Court after appreciation of evidence set aside the order dated 11.06.2019 and passed an order of reinstatement of workman without back wages. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there were serious allegations of receipt of gratification against respondent No.1/workman and an inquiry was conducted by the Committee, wherein, allegations were found proved. He would further submit that said document has been placed on record in this petition as Annexure P/1. He would contend that the petitioner was not afforded sufficient opportunity by learned Labour Court, therefore, the matter may be remitted back to the concerned Labour Court. 7. On the other hand, Ms.Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No1/workman would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Shukla. She would submit that the petitioner was proceeded ex parte as despite service of notice, no one appeared. She would further submit that inquiry report Annexure P/1 was not produced before the learned Labour Court, 3 therefore, it cannot be considered at this stage. It is further argued that the workman proved the fact that he worked for more than 240 days in a calender year prior to termination of services, whereas, the petitioner herein could not rebut that piece of evidence and therefore, the learned Labour Court set aside the order of termination of workman dated 11.06.2019. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 9. The respondent No.1/workman pleaded and proved that he was engaged under the petitioner on 10.06.1993 and his services were terminated without affording any opportunity of hearing vide order dated 11.06.2019. Learned Labour Court categorically held that no opportunity of hearing was afforded and no inquiry was conducted. The inquiry report which has been placed as Annexure P/1 in this petition cannot be looked into as said document was not produced before the learned Labour Court and no opportunity was afforded to the workman to rebut the contents of said document. 10. Taking into consideration the facts discussed-above, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha