1 CGHC010180762018 2026:CGHC:29589 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 112 of 2018 1 - The Managing Director M/s Kunal Pipes (India) Pvt. Ltd. Head Qtrs. 2862, Bazar Sirkiwalan, 4th Floor, Hauj Qg, Delhi - 110006. Present Address Kunal Pipes (India) Pvt. Ltd., Through Sushil Kumar Tulsyan, Director Incharge, House No. 167, Sector -7, Panchkula (Haryana)., District : Panchkula *, Haryana 2 - The Manager, Kunal Pipes (India) Pvt. Ltd., 06 - Borai Growth Center, Post - Rasmada, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Govind Nishad S/o Fagua Nishad, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village Khapri, Post - Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Raju Lal Sahu, S/o Ratnu, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village Khapri, Post - Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Som Lal Sinha S/o Gokul, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village Khapri, Post - Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Hemant Sahu S/o Sukhram, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village Khapri, Post - Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Prakash Yadav, S/o Firangi, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village Khapri, Post - Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Santosh Sahu S/o Rameshwar, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village Khapri, Post - Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 7 - Raj Kumar Sahu, S/o Umendra, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village Khapri, Post - Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 8 - Dani Ram Sahu, S/o Ajeet, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village Khapri, Post - Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : -2- Durg, Chhattisgarh 9 - Nohar Singh S/o Fakir Ram, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village Khapri, Post - Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 10 - Rajesh Nirmalkar, S/o Manohar, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village Khapri, Post - Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 11 - Nakul Nishad S/o Feruram R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village Khapri, Post - Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 12 - Ishwari Sahu S/o Janku Ram, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village Khapri, Post - Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 13 - Pitambar Sahu S/o Janak Ram, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village Khapri, Post - Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 14 - Bhoj Ram Sahu S/o Gendlal R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village Khapri, Post - Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 15 - Ramasra S/o Lakhanlal R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village Khapri, Post - Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 16 - Sudarshan Manikpuri, S/o Romdas, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village Khapri, Post - Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 17 - Dhal Singh S/o Ankalu Ram, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village Khapri, Post - Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 18 - Rakesh Nishad S/o Dukhu Ram, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village Khapri, Post - Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 19 - Budhary Sahu, S/o Neelkanth, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village Khapri, Post - Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 20 - Bhanak Yadav, S/o Bathu Yadav, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village Khapri, Post - Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 21 - Tijau Sahu S/o Arjun Sahu, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village Khapri, Post - Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 22 - Ram Swaroop S/o Sewa Ram R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village Khapri, Post - Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 23 - Bhushan Sahu S/o Rameshwar Sahu R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village Khapri, Post - Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 24 - Mehattar Nirmalkar S/o Balu Ram, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village Khapri, Post - Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPL No. 113 of 2018 1 - The Managing Director M/s Kunal Pipes (India) Pvt. Ltd. Head Qtrs. 2862, Bazar Sirkiwalan, 4th Floor, Hauj Qg, Delhi - 110006. Present Address Kunal Pipes (India) Pvt. Ltd., Through Sushil Kumar Tulsyan, Director In - Charge, House No. 167, Sector - 7, Panchkula (Haryana)., District : Panchkula *, Haryana 2 - The Manager, Kunal Pipes (India) Pvt. Ltd., 06 - Borai Growth Center, Po Rasmada, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Respondents / Employers) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Ashwani Nishad S/o Kamal Nishad, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village, Khapri, Po. Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Samaru Yadav S/o Dashrath, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village, Khapri, Po. Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Gajendra Sahu S/o Bisheshar Sahu, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village, Khapri, Po. Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Bahadur Lal Sahu R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village, Khapri, Po. Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Tajram Sahu S/o Tijau Ram, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village, Khapri, Po. Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Tuman Lal Sahu, S/o Khuman Ram, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village, Khapri, Po. Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 7 - Janak Lal Dharkar S/o Daua, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village, Khapri, Po. Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 8 - Varun Hajra S/o Badal Hajra, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village, Khapri, Po. Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh -4- 9 - Chetan Lal Thakur, S/o Chamru, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village, Khapri, Po. Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 10 - Vishnu Thakur R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village, Khapri, Po. Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 11 - Dhursai, S/o Sheru Nishad, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village, Khapri, Po. Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 12 - Santram, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village, Khapri, Po. Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 13 - Tijau Ram Nishad, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village, Khapri, Po. Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 14 - Manthir Ram Patel, S/o Kartik, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village, Khapri, Po. Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 15 - Jogi Ram, S/o Kartik Ram, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village, Khapri, Po. Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 16 - Rajkumar S/o Kejau Ram, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village, Khapri, Po. Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 17 - Sohan Lal S/o Manrakhan, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village, Khapri, Po. Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 18 - Raju Yadav S/o Tetku Yadav, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village, Khapri, Po. Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 19 - Kumar Thakur S/o Mehattar, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village, Khapri, Po. Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 20 - Bhugol Thakur, S/o Vishram, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village, Khapri, Po. Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 21 - Mordhwaj, S/o Brijlal, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village, Khapri, Po. Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 22 - Ramlal Yadav, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village, Khapri, Po. Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 23 - Romlath S/o Babelal R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village, Khapri, Po. Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 24 - Ghanshyam, S/o Lakhanlal, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village, Khapri, Po. Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 25 - Naresh Dewangarn S/o Sahdev, R/o Through Bheem Rao Bagde, Cg Mukti Morcha, Village, Khapri, Po. Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate For respondents : Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, Adv Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14.07.2026 1. Heard. 2. These two petitions have been filed challenging the orders passed by the learned State Industrial Court, Raipur (C.G.) dated 04.05.2018 passed in Civil Appeal No.8/2017/CGIR Act/A/11 and 09/2017/CGIR Act/A/11 respectively whereby, the learned Court below allowed appeals preferred by the workmen and directed the employer to make payment of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the workman in lieu of reinstatement. 3. The facts in brief are that the respondents/workmen were working as daily-wage employees under the petitioners/employers and they worked there for more than 240 days in a calender year preceding date of termination of their services. The petitioners discontinued services of respondents/workmen with effect from May, 2005. Initially, the workmen approached the learned Labour Court under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming therein reinstatement and back wages and those claims were rejected. The workmen thereafter made a complaint to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Durg and subsequently, reference was dismissed. -6- The respondents/workmen thereafter moved application(s) under Section 31(3) of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act of 1960’) before the learned Labour Court. They pleaded that in absence of proper advice, they approached wrong Forums. They also pleaded that they worked for more than 240 days in a calender year and their services were discontinued in contravention to the provisions of Section 25-F and 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’). 4. The petitioners herein appeared before the learned Labour Court and filed reply wherein, specific plea was taken that services of the respondents/workmen were discontinued in the month of May, 2005 whereas, applications have been moved by workmen in the year 2011 and thus, such applications are barred by limitation according to the provisions of Section 62 of the Act of 1960. It was pleaded that the Company has stopped functioning and was closed in the year 2005. It was also pleaded in the reply that workmen were never engaged by the Company as Sushil Kumar Tulsian and Manish Kumar Tulsian took over the Company from Subhash Gupta, Anil Bansal and Shri Mahaveer Prasad Agrawal in the year 2007. It was also pleaded that the workmen should have claimed reinstatement and back wages from their earlier employer. It was also pleaded that an agreement was entered into between earlier owners of the Company i.e. Subhash Gupta, Anil Bansal and Shri Mahaveer Prasad Agrawal on one side and Sushil Kumar Tulsian and Manish Kumar Tulsian on another side on 05.09.2007 and consideration of Rs.4.50 lacs was also paid. It was also stated 7 that possession of the Company was handed over to them on 28.12.2007 and the company was no longer operative and was restarted by the petitioners herein. Specific plea was taken that there were no terms and conditions in the agreement dated 05.09.2007 to the effect that transferee would employ or continue to employ the workers on the roll. 5. Learned Labour Court framed issues. The workmen led evidence, whereas the petitioners/employers failed to appear in the witness box, though, an affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC was filed. The learned Labour Court dismissed the claim of the workmen vide orders dated 18.07.2017. The workmen preferred appeal(s) before the State Industrial Court, Raipur according to the provisions of Section 65 read with Section 64-A of the Act of 1960. Learned Industrial Court allowed the appeals preferred by the workmen and directed the employers to make payment of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the workmen as compensation in lieu of reinstatement within a period of 30 days. The petitioners/employers have challenged said orders. 6. Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/employers would argue that in applications moved by the workmen, it was pleaded that their services were discontinued in the month of May, 2005 whereas they approached the learned Labour Court on 22.06.2011 after long 6 years. He would contend that Section 62 of the Act of 1960 prescribes a period of limitation of one year from the date of termination of services of the concerned employees. He would further contend that the learned State Industrial Court -8- failed to consider this aspect of the matter. It is further argued by Mr. Roy that the workmen failed to lead clinching evidence to establish that they were ever employed by the petitioners herein and there is no evidence in this regard. He would fairly admit the fact that the petitioners herein could not lead evidence before the learned Labour Court but the burden was upon the workmen to prove contravention of Section 25-F and 25-N of the Act of 1947. It is argued by Mr. Roy that in the absence of evidence, the learned Labour Court had rightly dismissed the application(s) moved by the workmen, whereas the learned State Industrial Court, without discussing the legal provisions of law, allowed the appeals preferred by the respondents/workmen. He would lastly submit that in cross-examination the workmen namely Govind Ram Nishad himself admitted the fact that the application was moved against erstwhile owners of the Company namely, Subhash Gupta, Anil Bansal and Mahaveer Prasad Agrawal, therefore, there was no occasion for the State Industrial Court to direct the subsequent owners of the company to make payment of compensation. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of New Horizon Sugar Mills Limited Vs. Ariyur Sugar Mills Staff Welfare Union and others, reported in 2009(17) SCC 487. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/workmen would oppose the submissions. He would submit that there was no delay in preferring the applications before the learned Labour Court and no issue regarding delay was 9 framed by the said Court. He would contend that the learned State Industrial Court considered the issue of limitation in filing appeals and in para 8 held that there was a delay of only 4 days. He would further contend that an application for exclusion of time elapsed in reference was moved which was duly considered. He would contend that initially the workmen approached the wrong Forum and subsequently approached the learned Labour Court in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1960. He would submit that applications under Section 31(3) of the Act of 1960 were filed against the Company through its manager. He would further submit that, at the relevant time, Sushil Kumar Tulsian and Manish Kumar Tulsian were running the Company and therefore liability has been fastened with them. He would contend that Sushil Kumar Tulsian and Manish Kumar Tulsian failed to appear in the witness box before the learned Labour Court and could not controvert the evidence led by the workmen. It is argued by Mr. Shrivastava that summons were duly served upon them through publication in a newspaper but they failed to appear and therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte. He would contend that both petitions deserve to be dismissed. 8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 9. In the matter of New Horizon Sugar Mills Limited (supra), the assets of New Horizon Sugar Mills were purchased by EID Parry India Ltd. in auction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the liability to pay its workmen would be on the erstwhile employer, -10- from out of the sale proceeds which were lying with Indian Bank. Relevant paras 2 & 7 are reproduced herein below : “2.The assets of New Horizon Sugar Mills (for short, `New Horizon') were seized and sold by auction under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 by Indian Bank, a secured creditor. EID Parry India Ltd. (for short `EID Parry') was the auction purchaser. 7.After the matter was argued for some time, Mr. S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel appearing for New Horizon fairly conceded that having regard to the wording of Section 25FF of the said Act and the settled legal position under several decisions of this Court starting from Anakapalla Co-operative Agricultural and Industrial Society v. Its Workmen [1962 (2) LLJ. 629], the liability to pay its workmen would be on New Horizon. Therefore, it follows that the amount due to the workers will have to be paid from out of the sale proceeds which are lying with the Indian Bank. The purchaser - EID Parry, who has already paid the sale price, will have no liability.” 10.In the present case, the petitioners herein failed to establish the fact that they took over the Company from Subhash Gupta, Anil Bansal and Mahaveer Prasad Agrawal and there is no evidence in this regard. 11.Mere assertions in reply would not suffice. If a fact has been pleaded in the plaint or written statement, it is the burden of the said party to prove the contents of such pleadings by leading cogent evidence. In the absence of any material, the contention made by Mr. Roy cannot be accepted. 12.With regard to delay, the workmen moved an application for exclusion of time elapsed in reference. In the said application, they pleaded that due to mistake, they approached the learned Labour Court for adjudication under the Act of 1947 and after its dismissal, they moved an application under Section 31(3) of the Act of 1960. The Learned Labour Court decided the issue with regard to 11 limitation against the workmen. The learned State Industrial Court, in paras 8 and 9, again considered the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court and the applications moved by the workmen and held that the applications moved by the workmen were within the period of limitation. Further, the CGIR Act and the Industrial Disputes Act are beneficial legislations enacted with the object of protecting the rights and interests of workmen. It is a well-settled principle that the provisions of such beneficial legislations must receive a liberal and purposive interpretation and thus, the claims of the workmen cannot be rejected on mere technicalities. Even if the applications were filed with delay, the claims cannot be rejected on that ground alone and the learned Industrial Court has rightly decided this issue in favour of the workmen. 13.It is also argued by Mr. Roy that Govind Prasad Gupta/workmen in cross-examination admitted the fact that applications have been moved claiming therein reinstatement and back wages against the erstwhile owners of the company. 14.Perusal of the applications moved by the workmen would show that the applications have been filed against the Company and its manager. 15.It appears that Sushil Kumar Tulsian and Manish Tulsian entered into the shoes of the owner or Manager of the company, therefore, they were required to establish that the workmen were engaged by erstwhile employers. Further, in the order passed by the learned -12- labour Court or by the Industrial Court, Sushil Kumar Tulsian and Manish Kumar Tulsian have never been directed to make payment of compensation to the workmen; rather the company and its manager have been directed to do so. Sushil Kumar Tulsian and Manish Kumar Tulsian filed a reply before the learned Labour Court, denied the averments made in the applications and further contested the appeals before the learned State Industrial Court, these facts clearly establish that they entered into the shoes of the owners of the company. On this count also, the grounds raised by Mr. Naha Roy cannot be accepted. 16.Having considered the facts discussed above, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders passed by the learned State Industrial Court. Accordingly, these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha