Chattisgarh High Court
Poshan Das vs Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon on 24 April, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by 2025:CGHC:18563
RAMESH
KUMAR VATTI NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPL No. 131 of 2019
• Poshan Das S/o Shri Sadhuram Nishad Aged About 35 Years R/o
Village Parewadih, Post Dumardih Khurd, Tahsil And District
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
Versus
• Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon Through Its Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr Sourabh Sharma, Advocate with
Ms. Haneet Kaur, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
24/04/2025
1. The petitioner has challenged the award passed by the learned Labour
Court in the following case number:-
Sl.No. Case No. Passed by the Date:
Learned Court:
1. Arising out Case No. By the Labour Court 04.02.2019
(under the Industrial
138/I.D. Act/2011/Ref. (declared on
Disputes Act),
Rajnandgoan (C.G.) 07.03.2019)
whereby statement of claim filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The facts of the present case are that a complaint was made by the
petitioner before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and thereafter the
appropriate government referred the matter according to the provisions
of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act on various dates in the year
2011. Sum and substance of the statement of claim filed by the
petitioner is that he was engaged by the respondent department as
daily rated labourer in the year 1999 and he was getting wages of
Rs.3,952/- per month. He also pleaded that he worked for 240 days in
a calendar year but without assigning sufficient reason and without
making payment of retrenchment allowance, the services of the
petitioner were discontinued by the department. It is also pleaded that
the respondent failed to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of
the Industrial Disputes Act. He claimed the relief of reinstatement along
with full back wages.
3. The respondent/employer filed their reply in the case and a specific
stand was taken that the engagement of the petitioner was on a need
basis. It is further pleaded that as there was no need for the services of
the petitioner, his services were discontinued and there was no
obligation to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act. The petitioner led evidence. They submitted documents
to establish that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year. The
learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed
to establish that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year.
Consequently, the statement of the claim filed by the petitioner was
dismissed.
4. Mr. Somkant Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
argue that the workmen filed relevant documents before the learned
Labour Court to demonstrate that he worked for 240 days but his
services were discontinued contrary to the provisions of Section 25-F
of the Industrial Disputes Act. He would further submit that no
opportunity of hearing was afforded by the respondent and no enquiry
was conducted. It is also argued that retrenchment allowance
according to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes
Act is not fair and no notice or one month salary in lieu of notice was
provided to the petitioner. He would contend that the learned Labour
Court failed to appreciate the documents and evidence led by the
petitioner. It is also argued by Mr. Somkant Verma that the respondent
filed the reply but failed to lead evidence, which is fatal for the
employer.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent would submit that the petitioner failed to prove the
fact that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year. He would further
submit that the learned Labour Court had minutely examined the
documents and recorded findings that the petitioner could not prove
the fact that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year. He would also
submit that according to the document submitted by the petitioner
himself, the petitioner worked for 25 days in a calendar year and his
engagement was on a need basis. He would further contend that the
petitioner was not appointed against the vacant and sanctioned post,
therefore, there was no need to issue any specific order for
discontinuation of services. He would also contend that the learned
Labour Court relying on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in
the matter of State of M.P. and Others vs. Arjunlal Razak reported
in (2006) 2 SCC 711 dismissed the statement of claim presented by
the petitioner, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the
onus to prove the fact that a workman has worked for 240 days in a
calendar year lies on workmen himself. He would state that the petition
deserves to be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged as daily rated employee under
the respondent on different dates between 2004 and 2010. In the year
2010, his services were discontinued. The application was moved
before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the appropriate
government referred the matter according to the provisions of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Before the learned Labour Court, the
petitioner filed the statement of claim along with documents and also
adduced evidence. The respondent filed its reply but failed to lead
evidence. It is a well-settled principle of law that the petitioners or
plaintiffs have to prove their case and they cannot take shelter on the
shoulders of the respondents/defendants.
8. In the present case, the petitioner failed to produce documentary
evidence to establish the fact that he worked for 240 days in a calendar
year. The document submitted by the petitioner and scrutinized by the
learned Labour Court would show that he worked for less than 240
days in a calendar year. It appears that the engagement of the
petitioner was on a need basis. The period for which the petitioner
worked in the preceding 12 months as calculated by the learned
Labour Court is reproduced herein below:-
Appointed as Terminated As per Affidavit, Order 18 Rule 4
Labour CPC
2004-2010 17.10.2010 He worked for : 25 days in the
month of October, 2004
As per para-13 of the order, he
worked for 173 days.
9. As the petitioner was not appointed against sanctioned and vacant
post, no documents could be produced to prove the fact that he worked
for 240 days, there was no requirement for the respondent to comply
with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
10. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arjunlal Razak
(supra), in my opinion, no case is made out for interference.
11. Consequently, these petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
vatti
