1 2026:CGHC:4523 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 3 of 2019 Ashok Paretkar S/o Shri Arun Paretkar Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Padavpara, Kargi Road Kota, Police Station-Kota, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Res. No. 01 Was Not A Party Before The Learned Labour Court Has Been Impleaded As Respondent No. 01 Here In As It Is Necessary To Implead The State Government Through The Secretary Of Concerned Department). 2 - Chief Conservator Of Forest Bilaspur Circle, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Forest Range Officer Forest Range Kota, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. S. P. Kale and Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocates For Res./State : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Deputy Government Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 27/01/2026 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the award dated 16.10.2018, passed by the Judge under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, Labour Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in case No. 11/I.D. Act/ ref./2015 by which the statement of claim filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged as Security Labour, Class IV with the respondents-Department. He was appointed on vacant and permanent post of Labour in the month of January, 2011, he continued to work there till 30.06.2014 thereafter, without complying the provisions contained in Section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (henceforth, “ID Act, 1947”), the petitioner’s services was terminated by an oral order/direction. He further submits that neither retrenchment compensation was given to the petitioner nor any prior notice was given to him before his termination. Thus, the petitioner has raised an industrial dispute regarding his termination before Conciliation Officer i.e. Assistant Labour Commissioner immediately after his termination. When the said conciliation proceeding failed, he filed a statement of claim before the Labour Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the similar pleadings were made in the statement of claim, which were denied by the respondents authority by filing written statement. 3. Based on pleading of the parties, learned Labour Court framed as many as 8 issues. Parties led their evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The learned Labour Court vide its impugned award dated 16.10.2018 held that the petitioner was not able to prove that he continuously worked for 240 days in one calendar year preceding to the date of termination, 3 thus, dismissed the statement of claim filed by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Labour Court has committed grave error in holding that the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in a one calendar year prior to his termination from services. He further submits that the check period, for which, the petitioner was required to work for more than 240 days would be from July, 2013 to June, 2014, the voucher bills and vouchers of making payment to the petitioner were placed before the learned Labour Court, which was duly proved, despite that the learned Labour Court without considering the same, has dismissed the statement of claim filed by the petitioner, thus, the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court in this regard is illegal & perverse, hence, the same is liable to be set aside. He submits apart from this, a certificate (Ex. P/7C) of continuous period of service of the petitioner from 1.01.2011 to 30.06.2014, is also placed on record which has also been overlooked by the learned Labour Court while passing the impugned award. To utter his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 897. Thus, the impugned award dated 16.10.2018 deserves to be set aside and the petitioner may be reinstated in the services alongwith full back wages. 5. Per contra, opposing the submission learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner is required to prove continuous working of more than 240 days in one calendar year and the pleadings itself, the petitioner has stated that he was working with the respondents-Department from January, 2013 to December, 2013. Perusal of which clearly indicates that he failed to work for more than 240 days. He further submits that the grounds, 4 which have been raised in this petition, is not raised before the learned Labour Court. Thus, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. As per pleadings of the petitioner, he started working with the respondents- Department from 1st of January, 2011 and continued worked till 30th of June 2014 and, thereafter, vide oral order he was not allowed to work and deemed to be terminated from services. The documents i.e. bills and vouchers with respect to payment of salary paid to the petitioner for the aforesaid period is placed on record and the petitioner was only required to prove that from July, 2013 to June 2014, he worked for more than 240 days. The documents placed before the Labour Court, which includes the payment of the salary for this period and if the days worked by the petitioner is calculated, it would come more than 240 days. Apart from this, the Ex. P/7C is the certificate which has been issued by respondents-Department, which also goes to show that the petitioner has worked from 1st of January, 2011 to June, 2014. 8. From perusal of the record, it does not appear that whether before terminating the services of the petitioner, the provisions of 25 (F) has been complied with or not. 9. Perusal of the evidence of the respondents- Department further goes to show that neither any retrenchment compensation has been paid to the petitioner nor any prior notice of termination was issued to the petitioner before terminating his services. It is also to be seen that Labour Court has also ordered to place on record the necessary documents which has also not been complied with by the respondents. Thus, taking into consideration the facts 5 situation and evidence available on record, the finding so recorded by the learned Labour Court is not based on proper appreciation of the evidence. 10. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 897, in which, it has been held in paragraph 13 as under :- “13. We are conscious of the fact that an appointment on public post cannot be made in contravention of recruitment rules and constitutional scheme of employment. However, in view of the materials placed before the Laabour Court and in this Court, we are satisfied that the said principle would not apply in the case on hand. As rightly pointed out, the appellant has not prayed for regularization but only for reinstatment with continuity of service for which he is legally entitled to. It is to be noted in the case of termination of casual employee what is required to be seen is whether a workman has completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months or not. If sufficient materials are shown that workman has completed 240 days then his service cannot be terminated without giving notice or compensation in lieu of it in terms of Section 25FF. The High Court failed to appreciate that in the present case appellant has completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months and no notice or compensation in lieu of it was given to him, in such circumstances his termination was illegal. All the decisions relied on by the High Court are not applicable to the case on hand more particularly, in view of the specific factual finding by the Labour Court.” 6 11. Taking clue from this judgment, the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court deserves to be and is hereby set aside. Respondents Department is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. Fact remains that nothing is brought on record to suggest that he was gainfully employed or not, thus this Court is not inclined to grant any back wages. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.01.31 15:33:54 +0530