1 2026:CGHC:27034 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 191 of 2019 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Social Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanandi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Panchayat And Social Services, Mahanadi Block, Mantralaya Parisar Raipur Present Addres Indravati Bhawan Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - Rupesh Kumar Jhulpe S/o Shri Shantanu Ram Jhulpe R/o Ward No. 21, Gurughasidas Ward, Behind F. C. I. Godown, Subhash Nagar, Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Petitioners/State : Mr. Keshav Gupta, Government Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02.07.2026 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners have filed this petition challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Case No.01/I.D.Act/Reference/2016 dated 27.02.2018, whereby, an award was passed for reinstatement of workman with 20% back wages. -2- 3. The facts in brief are that the respondent/workman was appointed on the post of shoemaker/cobbler under the petitioners/employer on 26.06.2010. He worked there till 02.09.2012. On 03.09.2012, the petitioners herein discontinued service without issuance of notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing. The workman moved an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and after expiry of 45 days filed statement of claim according to the provisions of sub- section(2) of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’). The workman further pleaded that he worked for 240 days in a calender year and his services were discontinued contrary to the provisions of Section 25-F & 25-G of the Act of 1947. 4. Despite service of notice, the petitioners herein failed to participate in the proceedings before the learned Labour Court and thus, no reply was filed. The workman examined himself and stated on affidavit filed under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC that he was appointed on the post of shoemaker/cobbler under the petitioners/employer on 26.06.2010 and worked there till 02.09.2012. 5. Learned Labour Court framed issues. After appreciation of evidence passed an order of reinstatement of workman with 20% back wages. The workman submitted muster-roll and daily attendance register for period from June, 2010 to July, 2012. He also filed pay-slips to demonstrate that he had worked under the petitioners for said period. The department could not controvert those documents and therefore, learned Labour Court allowed the statement of claim and passed award of reinstatement of workman with 20% back wages. 6. Mr. Gupta, learned Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners/employer would submit that the petitioners could not file 3 reply to the statement of claim before the learned Labour Court. He would further submit that the workman was never engaged by the department against sanctioned and vacant post and he was a contractual employee, therefore, there was no need to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Act of 1947. It is also argued that the workman never worked for 240 days in a calender year and findings recorded by the learned Labour Court in this regard are baseless. He would pray to set aside the award passed by the learned Labour Court. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/workman would oppose submissions advanced by Mr. Gupta. He would contend that the workman established the fact that he worked for 240 days in a calender year. He would further contend that the workman exhibited daily attendance register and pay-slips to establish this fact. It is also argued that the petitioners herein failed to revert said piece of evidence and therefore, learned Labour Court rightly passed an award in favour of the workman. He would contend that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 9. In the statement of claim, the workman specifically pleaded that he was appointed on the post of shoemaker/cobbler under the petitioners/employer on 26.06.2010 and worked there till 02.09.2012 for more than 240 days in a calendar year. In support thereof, he -4- exhibited daily attendance register, pay-slips but the petitioners/employer failed to controvert those documents. 10.The submission made by Mr. Gupta to the effect that the workman was a contractual employee, appears to be self-serving statement as no document has been placed in this regard. Learned Labour Court after due appreciation of documentary evidence passed the award in favour of the workman, therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Labour Court. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha