1 2026:CGHC:23956 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 70 of 2021 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..Petitioner No.1 (The petitioner No.1 was not a party before the Learned Labour Court but has been impleaded as petitioner No.1 in the instant petition as the proper course is to implead the State Government through the Secretary of the concerned department) Divisional Forest Officer, Rajnandgaon Forest Division, Government of Chhattisgarh, G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon (CG) ... Petitioner No.2/Second Party No.1 versus 1 - Smt. Kusum Soni W/o Shri Harishnkar Soni Sonar Para, Ward No. 33 Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner/State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. A.G. For Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 16.06.2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. The petitioners/State have challenged the award dated 28.12.2020 passed by the learned Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act, 1947') in Case No.114/I.D.Act/2012/Reference, whereby, an award of reinstatement without back wages has been passed in favour of the workman. 2 3. The facts in brief are that husband of the respondent was engaged as daily wage employee under the petitioners prior to 31.12.1988. He died on 31.01.2007 and thereafter, the respondent was appointed on compassionate basis vide order dated 02.03.2007 under the petitioners as a labourer. She worked till 31.07.2011 and thereafter, her services were discontinued without issuance of show cause notice and without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’). A complaint was made before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and matter was referred to the concerned Labour Court vide order dated 08.06.2012. 4. The workman filed statement of claim, wherein, she pleaded that she worked under the petitioners for period of 240 days in a calender year preceding date of discontinuation of service. She further pleaded that her services were discontinued contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1947 with effect from 02.03.2007. It is also pleaded that no show cause notice was issued and no retrenchment allowance was paid to the respondent/workman. 5. The petitioners herein filed reply and denied contents of statement of claim. They pleaded that husband of the respondent was not a permanent employee of the department and therefore, the workman had no right to retain the post of labourer and she has no right to claim reinstatement. 6. Learned Labour Court framed issues. The workman examined herself and proved the contents of statement of claim. She exhibited the bank statement and payment slips vide Ex.P/2 to Ex.P/31 to demonstrate that she worked continuously for 240 days in a calender year under the petitioners. The petitioners herein examined Madhusudan Dongre, who admitted the fact that the workman was engaged with the department and 3 she was being paid wages through bank. 7. Learned Labour Court decided the issues and reference in favour of the workman and passed the award of reinstatement without back wages. 8. Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/petitioners would submit that the workman failed to prove the fact that she worked for 240 days in a calender year preceding date of discontinuation of service. It is also argued that learned Labour Court committed error of law while deciding the reference in favour of workman. He would pray to set aside the award. 9. On the other hand,learned counsel appearing for respondent/workman would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Pandey. He would submit that the workman was offered compassionate appointment on account of death of her husband. He would further submit that the workman worked from 02.03.2007 to 31.07.2011 and she has proved this fact exhibiting documents vide Ex.P/2 to P/31. It is also argued that the petitioners herein failed to prove the documentary evidence to falsify the documents adduced by the workman. He would contend that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 11.Admittedly, husband of the respondent was engaged as daily wage employee under the petitioners prior to 31.12.1988. He died on 31.01.2007 and thereafter, respondent/workman was appointed on compassionate basis vide order dated 02.03.2007under the petitioners as labourer. She worked till 31.07.2011 and thereafter her services were discontinued. It is apparent that no show cause notice was issued; no 4 retrenchment allowance was paid and no inquiry was conducted, thus, the decision of the discontinuation of service of workman was contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1947. 12. The workman adduced documentary evidence to establish the fact that she worked for 240 days in a calender year preceding the date of discontinuation of service vide Ex.P/2 to P/31. The wages of the workman were being paid through Bank account and these facts have not been rebutted by the petitioners by adducing clinching evidence. Learned Labour Court has considered oral as well as documentary evidence and thereafter, passed award and answered the reference in favour of the workman. 13. Taking into consideration the facts discussed-above and findings recorded by the learned labour Court, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference with the impugned award. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed at admission stage itself. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha