1 CGHC010029632020 2026:CGHC:39422 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 15 of 2020  Smt. Freeda Marry Wife Of Anup Kumar Aged About 38 Years R/o Near Primary School Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1. Director, Education Society Christ Bandhu Niwas, Bairan Bazaar, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Secretary, Bharat Mata Hindi Higher Secondary School, Railway Area, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Anushri Mishra, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Khemchand Prajapati, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Nasimuddin Ansari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09.09 .2026 1. The petitioner/workman has challenged an award passed by the learned Labour Court passed in Case No. 72/I.D.Act/Ref./2013 dated 06.11.2019, whereby reference was answered in negative and statement of claim filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. The facts in brief are that the services of the petitioner was working on the post of Upper Division Clerk under the respondents and his services were discontinued by respondents by vocal order on 30.04.2013. The petitioner herein approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner and subsequently SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.09.10 10:17:10 +0530 2 matter was referred according to the provisions of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947(for short “Act of 1947”) to the concerned Labour Court Court. In the statement of claim, the petitioner pleaded that she was appointed on the post of Upper Division Clerk on 28.04.2010 and she worked there till 30.04.2013 and on said date her services were terminated contrary to the provisions of Section 25F of Act of 1947. It is also pleaded that she worked there for period of 240 days in a calendar year and thus, claimed relief of reinstatement with back-wages. 3. The respondents herein filed reply to statement of claim and stated that petitioner was appointed on contract for period from 05.07.2010 to 30.04.2011; 05.07.2011 to 30.04.2012 and 05.07.2012 to 30.04.2013 and she never worked for more than 240 days in a calender year. It was also pleaded that the appointment of workman was for particular session and conditions mentioned in the order of appointment were duly accepted by the workman, therefore, she has no right to claim reinstatement and back-wages. 4. Learned Labour Court framed issues, parties led evidence, and thereafter, award was passed. The petitioner herein examined herself as AW/1. She deposed that she was initially appointed vide order dated 01.11.2010 (Ex. P/1), subsequently orders of appointment were issued on 01.08.2011 and 01.11.2012. She also deposed that she worked under the respondents for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding date of termination, and therefore, she was entitled for reinstatement. AW2 Laveena Fransis supported the stand taken by the petitioner. 5. The respondents examined Smt. Gloria Khalkho (NAW/1), Father Fransis T. (NAW/2), Father Fransis Kujur (NAW/3). They exhibited payment vouchers 3 Ex. D/1, D/2, D/3 and service rules Ex. D/4. They stated that the petitioner was engaged for particular session and after expiry of said period the petitioner has no right to claim continuation in service. 6. The learned Labour Court considered the fact that the petitioner was appointed on contract for particular session, and therefore, she has no right to claim reinstatement and back-wages and accordingly dismissed the statement of claim. 7. Ms. Anushri Mishra, Advocate would argue that the petitioner worked under the respondents for more than 240 days in a calendar year and sufficient documentary evidence was adduced. She would submit that the learned Labour Court committed an error of law while ignoring clinching evidence while dismissing the statement of claim. She would pray to allow this petition. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose. He would submit that the petitioner was a contractual employee and she has no right to claim reinstatement and back-wages and the learned Labour Court rightly dismissed the statement of claim. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 10. Section 2(oo) of ID Act, 1947 deals with retrenchment. Sub-Section (bb) states that termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non- renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein would not come within the definition of the retrenchment. Section 2(oo) is reproduced herein-below :- 4 “2(oo) [ "retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include - [Inserted by Act 43 of 1953, Section 2 (w.e.f. 24.10.1953). ] 11. In present case, perusal of the orders of appointment vide Ex. P/1, P/2 and P/3 would reveal that petitioner was appointed for particular session from 05.07.2010 to 30.04.2011, 05.07.2011 to 30.04.2012 and 05.07.2010 to 30.04.2013 on ad-hoc basis, thus, the engagement of the petitioner was on contract and after expiry of contract period the respondent authorities did not renew the contract. As the petitioner was appointed on contract for particular session and she failed to establish the fact that she worked for 240 days in a calendar year preceding date of termination of her services, the learned Labour Court rightly answered the reference in negative. Further, according to the provisions of Sub-section (bb) of Section 2(oo) of Act of 1947, the petitioner has no right to claim reinstatement after expiry of contract, thus, in opinion of this Court learned Labour Court rightly dismissed the claim of the petitioner with regard to reinstatement and back-wages. 12. Having considered evidence available on record and definition of retrenchment, I do not find any good ground to interfere with award. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant