1 2026:CGHC:17480 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 161 of 2014 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Ps Mandir Hasaud, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Branch Canal Division No. 4, Nandelibhata, Sakti, Ps Sakti, Distt Janjgir Champa, Cg, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Jagannath Prasad Lader And Anr. S/o Parasram Aged About 51 Years Ex. Labour, Address Janjgir, Distt Janjgir Champa, Cg, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Janjgie, Ps Janjgir, Dist Janjgir Champa, Cg, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/State : Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, Deputy Government Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16/04/2026 1. The petitioner/State has challenged the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Janjgir-Champa in Case No. 40/ID Act/2012 (Reference) dated 12.05.2014, whereby the statement of claim filed by the 2 petitioner was partly allowed and award of reinstatement in service was passed in favour of the workman without back wages. 2. The workman moved an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner/Conciliation Officer against discontinuation of his services, and the matter was referred by the competent Government vide order dated 30.11.2009 after framing the following questions for determination:- “1) क्या सेवा पृ थक्कीकीरण की 12 वार्ष पृश्चात् प्रस्त्त् आवादन पृत्र विवाचार याग्या है ? (2) याविद है!, त् क्या श्री# जगन्नाथ प्रसेद लदर की सेवा पृ थक्कीकीरण वा ध एवा! उविचात् है ? याविद नहै# त् वाहै विकीसे सेहैयात् की पृत्र है+?" 3. The workman filed a statement of claim wherein he pleaded that he was appointed against a vacant post on daily wages under the petitioner on 01.02.1992 and worked till 11.02.1995. It is pleaded that he worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year but contrary to Sections 25(F) and 25(G) of the I.D. Act, 1947, the services of the workman were discontinued. 4. The employer filed a reply and denied the averments made in the statement of claim. It has been pleaded that the workman was never employed or appointed against a vacant post and he never worked continuously for 240 days in a calender year. The learned Labour Court framed issues, parties led evidence, and thereafter the award was passed. 5. Mr. Saini, Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/petitioners would argue that the workman failed to establish the fact that he worked for 240 days in a calender year. He would further submit that the engagement of the workman was temporary in nature, and he failed to establish that he worked for the said period by leading 3 cogent evidence. He would also submit that though the services of the workman were discontinued on 11.02.1995, he approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner/Conciliation Officer in the year 2009, after about 13-14 years, therefore, the dispute raised by the workman was not maintainable and was barred by limitation; thus, he prayed for setting aside the award passed by the learned Labour Court. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 would submit that the workman worked under the petitioner for more than 240 days in a calender year preceding his termination, and this fact has been proved by the workman by leading documentary as well as oral evidence, including the experience certificate (Exhibit P/1) and muster rolls for the period from 01.03.1992 to 11.03.1995 (Exhibits P/2 to P/36). 7. He would contend that the documents placed on record by the workman could not be rebutted or controverted by the employer. With regard to delay, Mr. Deshmukh would contend that the matter of the workman was referred to the Labour Court vide order dated 30.11.2009, prior to insertion of the amendment in Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, the learned Labour Court rightly decided this issue in favour of the workman. He would also contend that prior to 2010, there was no prescribed period of limitation to raise a dispute either before the Labour Commissioner or Conciliation Officer; thus, the petition filed by the State deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. The workman categorically stated that he worked under the petitioner from 01.02.1992 to 11.02.1995. In support thereof, he has placed on record the experience certificate and muster rolls (Exhibits P/1 to P/36). The employer could not lead any documentary or oral evidence to controvert these documents. 4 10. With regard to delay, as argued by Mr. Saini, the reference was made prior to 2010, i.e., on 30.11.2009. Section 2A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was inserted by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (Act 24 of 2010), which came into force on 15.09.2010, and prior to the said date, there was no prescribed period of limitation to raise a dispute. 11. In the present case, the petitioner herein failed to comply with provisions of Sections 25(F) and 25(G) of the I.D. Act while taking the decision of discontinuation of services of the workman. 12.Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim