1 CGHC010351042021 2026:CGHC:39174 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 4 of 2022 1 - Laxmiprasad Lathiya S/o Heeraram Lathiya Aged About 26 Years R/o Khadpadi Para, Janjgir, Tahsil And P.S. Janjgir District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sub Divisional Officer Public Works Department, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Janjgir Champa District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. UPS Sahu, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.09.2026 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief(s) : “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record pertaining to the petitioner's case. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned award dated 05.10.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Judge under Industrial Dispute Act (Labour Court) Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.), in the interest of justice. -2- (iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service and also to grant rest salary of the petitioner for 3 months with all consequential benefit within stipulated time in the interest of justice. (iv) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner/workman approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner, raising a dispute to the effect that he was engaged by the respondents-department on the post of Mason on 31.12.2013 and worked there till 14.08.2017, whereafter his services were discontinued contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’). The matter was referred to the concerned Labour Court by the appropriate Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Act of 1947. In the statement of claim, the petitioner pleaded that he was engaged on the post of Mason under respondent No.2 in the month of December, 2013 and continuously worked there till 14.08.2017. It was further pleaded that the respondent-department discontinued the services of the petitioner without issuing any show-cause notice and without holding any departmental enquiry. It was also stated that the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Act of 1947 were not complied with. 4. Despite service of notice, the respondents did not appear and were proceeded ex parte before the learned Labour Court. 5. The learned Labour Court framed the issues. The petitioner examined himself as AW-1 and repeated the contents of the 3 statement of claim. He exhibited the muster rolls for the months of March 2014, April 2014, July 2014, November 2014 and March 2016 vide Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/37. The learned Labour Court, after considering the documentary as well as oral evidence, recorded a finding that the workman failed to establish the fact that he worked under the respondents for 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of termination of his services and, accordingly, dismissed the statement of claim. The petitioner has challenged the award passed by the learned Labour Court dated 05.10.2021. 6. Mr. Sahu, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner continuously worked for more than three years under the respondents and sufficient documentary evidence was produced in support thereof. He would further submit that the learned Labour Court failed to consider the evidence available on record. He would pray to allow this petition. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State would oppose submissions. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 9. Perusal of the record would show that the petitioner could not lead documentary evidence to establish the fact that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of termination of his services. 10. The petitioner has placed on record copies of the muster rolls vide Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/37, but there is no documentary evidence to infer that in -4- the year 2017 or during the months of 2016, the petitioner worked under the respondents. 11.It has been well settled legal position that for getting protection of Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is incumbent on the part of the workman to plead and prove continuous 240 days service preceding date of termination. Section 25(B) defines continuous service and Section 25(F) provides grant of retrenchment compensation to the workman. 12.Sections 25-B and 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act are extracted below:- "25B. Definition of continuous service. For the purposes of this Chapter,-- (1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman; (2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-- (a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-- (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; (b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than- (i) ninety- five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case. 5 25F. 5 25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.-No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-- (a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice: (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay 2 for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3 or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]. 13. Coming to the facts of the case that there is no documentary evidence on record to infer that petitioner worked for 240 days in a preceding 12 months before the date of termination. The self-serving statement of the petitioner cannot establish that he worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months before the date of termination which is essential requirement for getting protection under Sections 25(f) of the Industrial Dispute Act. 14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Municipal Corporation, Faridabad vs. Siri Niwas, reported in 2004(8) SCC 195 has held as under:- "14. For the said purpose it is necessary to notice the definition of 'Continuous Service' as contained in Section 25-B of the Act. In terms of sub-Section (2) of Section 25- B that if a workman during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer 240 days within a period of one year, he will be deemed to be in continuous service. By reason of the said -6- provision, thus, a legal fiction is created. The retrenchment of the respondent took place on 17.5.1995. For the purpose of calculating as to whether he had worked for a period of 240 days within one year or not, it was, therefore, necessary for the Tribunal to arrive at a finding of fact that during the period between 5.8.1994 to 16.5.1995 he had worked for a period of more than 240 days. As noticed hereinbefore, the burden of proof was on the workman. From the Award it does not appear that the workman adduced any evidence whatsoever in support of his contention that he complied with the requirements of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Apart from examining himself in support of his contention he did not produce or call for any document from the office of the Appellant herein including the muster rolls. It is improbable that a person working in a Local Authority would not be in possession of any documentary evidence to support his claim before the Tribunal. Apart from muster rolls he could have shown the terms and conditions of his offer of appointment and the remuneration received by him for working during the aforementioned period. He even did not examine any other witness in support of his case." 15. Learned Labour Court has appreciated documentary as well as oral evidence and thereafter, dismissed the statement of claim and answered the reference in negative. 16.Having considered the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court, the documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner- workman and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-referred matter, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Labour Court. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha