1 2026:CGHC:17847 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 198 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest And Climate Change, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Nava Raipur Atal Nagar (C.G.) (The Petitioner No. 1 Was Not A Party Before The Learned Labour Court But Has Been Impleaded As Petitioner No. 1 In The Instant Petition As The Proper Course Is To Implead The State Government Through The Secretary, Of The Concerned Department ) 2 - The Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division Kabirdham (Kawardha) Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners Versus * - Dilip Kumar Goswami S/o Late Birjhu Goswami Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Khara, Tahsil Bodla, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioners/State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent/workman : Mr. Anirudh Shrivastava, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20/04/2026 1. The Learned Labour Court has passed an award in favour of the workman/respondent and directed the petitioners herein to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/- and said award has been challenged by filing this petition. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent/workman filed statement of claim before the concerned Labour Court to the effect that he worked under the petitioners herein from June 2013 till June 2015 and Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.04.21 18:59:05 +0530 2 thereafter his services were discontinued. He further pleaded that he worked for period of 240 days without break and the petitioner authorities failed to comply with the provisions of Sections 25 F and 25 H of the ID Act, 1947. The petitioners herein filed reply to statement of claim and denied the facts, the parties led evidence and thereafter said award was passed. The learned Labour Court recorded a categorical finding that the workman worked under the petitioners for more than 240 days in a calender year and his services were discontinued without following procedure prescribed in Sections 25 F and 25 H of the ID Act, therefore, in lieu of reinstatement of service, the learned Labour Court granted compensation to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/-. 3. Perusal of the record would show that the petitioners herein failed to prove the fact that the workman did not work with the department for 240 days in a calender year and therefore, in my opinion, the learned Labour Court rightly granted compensation to the workman to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/-. 4. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti