1 CGHC010259672023 2026:CGHC:37536 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 122 of 2023 1 - Department Of Post Through Superintendent Of Post Office, Bilaspur Division Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Postmaster Champa Mukhya Dak Ghar, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - Umesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Salik Ram Dewangan R/o Village Barchhapara, Ward No. 9, Champa, Post Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - The Presiding Officer Learned Labour Court, Industrial Disputes Act-Cum- Labour Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For petitioners : Mr. Abhishek Banjare, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.08.2026 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking following relief (s) : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to case of petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned award dated 18.07.2022. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may -2- deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent No.1/workman, who was working under petitioner No.1/Department herein, was removed from service with effect from 02.02.2017. He was engaged as a daily-wage worker on the post of ‘Computer Operator’ on 01.01.2007. The workman approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) against the action of the petitioners and, subsequently, the matter was referred by the appropriate Government to the concerned Labour Court. The workman filed a statement of claim wherein he pleaded that he worked under the petitioners from 01.01.2007 to 02.02.2017 and his services were retrenched contrary to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’). The workman further pleaded that no enquiry was conducted, no show- cause notice was issued, and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him prior to retrenchment of his services. 3. The petitioners herein filed their reply to the statement of claim and denied the averments made therein. The petitioners pleaded in their reply that the workman was never engaged by them and he did not work for 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of discontinuation of his service. 4. The learned Labour Court framed the issues; the parties led their evidence and, thereafter, an award of reinstatement with 25% back wages was passed on 18.07.2022 and pronounced on 18.04.2023. 5. Mr. Banjare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would 3 argue that the workman could not establish the fact that he worked under petitioner No.1/Department for 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of discontinuation of his service. He would further argue that petitioner No.1/Department denied the fact that respondent No.1/workman was engaged by the Department. It is also argued by Mr. Banjare, learned Advocate, that the burden was upon the workman to establish Non-compliance with the requirements of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. He would submit that the workman has no right to claim reinstatement or back wages in the absence of cogent evidence. He would pray to allow this petition. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/wokman, would oppose the submissions. He would submit that the workman examined himself and exhibited pay slips issued by the Department in the years 2014, 2015 and 2016. He would further submit that those documents establish that the workman had worked under the Department for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of termination. He would contend that, though the Department examined one witness, who failed to rebut the evidence led by the workman. He would further contend that the learned Labour Court rightly passed an award of reinstatement with 25% back wages. He would submit that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Mr. Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2, would submit that there is a dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.1 only. -4- 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 9. In the statement of claim, the workman categorically pleaded that he was engaged on 01.01.2007 on the post of Computer Operator and he worked there till 02.02.2017. In his evidence, the workman further stated that though he worked for 240 days in a calendar year, his services were discontinued contrary to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. 10.The Department examined a witness, namely, Ramesh Kumar Dewangan, Sub-Postmaster. This witness admitted the documents exhibited by the workman vide Ex.P/2 to P/10. He also admitted the pay slips issued in favour of the workman. 11.Perusal of the document exhibited by the workman vide Ex.P/2 would show that the workman worked under the Department for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of discontinuation of his service. The pay slips issued by the Department were not disputed by the witness examined by the petitioners. 12.Once it is established that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, the burden shifted upon the employer to prove to the contrary and further to establish that his services were discontinued in accordance with the provisions of Section 25- F of the Act of 1947. It is nowhere stated that the services of the workman were discontinued in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. Therefore, the learned Labour Court rightly passed the award in favour of the workman. Thus, I 5 do not find any good ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha