Ramshankar vs Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon
2025 Latest Caselaw 3929 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Ramshankar vs Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon on 24 April, 2025

                                      1




Digitally signed                                      2025:CGHC:18564
by RAMESH
KUMAR VATTI                                                             NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                            WPL No. 121 of 2019
    •   Pramod Yadav S/o Shri Mannu Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Village
        And Post Dumaradih Khurd, P.S. Lalbag, Tahsil And District-
        Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
                                                              --- Petitioner
                                    Versus
    •   Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon Through its Commissioner,
        Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon,
        Chhattisgarh
                                                          --- Respondents

And

WPL No. 125 of 2019 • Nihali Sahu @ Nihali Ram Sahu S/o Shri Thukel Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Bhatagaon, Post Bhedikala, Police Station Lalbag, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner Versus • Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent And

• Gopi Yadav S/o Shri Shriram Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Mohara, Ward No. 41, Police Station Lalbag, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner Versus • Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent And

• Satish Yadav @ Satish Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Paltan Yadav, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village - Mohara, Ward No. 41, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner

Versus • Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondents And

• Bhuneshwar Nishad S/o Shri Jaitram Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Mohara, Ward No. 41, P.S. Lalbag, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner Versus • Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon, Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent And

• Ramshankar S/o Shri Durgaram Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Pendri, Ward No. 18, P.S. Lalbag, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner Versus • Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent And

• Praveen S/o Shri Shobharam Meshram Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Mohara, Ward No. 41 P.S. Lal Bag, Tahsil And District Rajnandagaon, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner

Versus • Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent For Petitioners : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate

For Respondent : Mr. Sourabh Sharma and Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocates

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24/04/2025

1. The petitioners have challenged the award passed by the learned

Labour Court in the following case numbers:-

Sl.No. Case No: Passed by the Learned Date:

Court:

1. Arising out Case By the Labour Court (under 01.02.2019 No. 113/I.D. the Industrial Disputes Act) (declared on Act/2011/Ref. Rajanandgaon (C.G) 08.04.2019)

2. Arising out Case By the Labour Court (under 02.02.2019 No. 121/I.D. the Industrial Disputes Act) (declared on Act/2011/Ref. Rajanandgaon (C.G) 06.03.2019)

3. Arising out Case By the Labour Court (under 02.02.2019 No. 115/I.D. the Industrial Disputes Act) (declared on Act/2011/Ref. Rajanandgaon (C.G) 06.03.2019)

4. Arising out Case By the Labour Court (under 05.02.2019 No. 127/I.D. the Industrial Disputes Act) (declared on Act/2011/Ref. Rajanandgaon (C.G) 06.03.2019)

5. Arising out Case By the Labour Court (under 02.02.2019 No. 116/I.D. the Industrial Disputes Act) (declared on Act/2011/Ref. Rajanandgaon (C.G) 06.03.2019)

6. Arising out Case By the Labour Court (under 01.02.2019 No. 107/I.D. the Industrial Disputes Act) (declared on Act/2011/Ref. Rajanandgaon (C.G) 08.04.2019)

And

7. Arising out Case By the Labour Court (under 02.02.2019 No. 145/I.D. the Industrial Disputes Act) (declared on Act/2011/Ref. Rajanandgaon (C.G) 06.03.2019)

whereby statements of claim filed by the petitioners were dismissed.

2. The facts of the present case are that a complaint was made by the

petitioners 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 petitioners are that they were engaged by the respondent

department as daily rated labourers in the year 1999 and they were

getting wages of Rs.3,952/- per month. They also pleaded that they

worked for 240 days in a calendar year but without assigning sufficient

reason and without making payment of retrenchment allowance, the

services of the petitioners 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. They claimed the relief

of reinstatement along with full back wages.

3. The respondent/employer filed their reply in all cases and a specific

stand was taken that the engagement of the petitioners was on a need

basis. It is further pleaded that as there was no need for the services

of the petitioners, their services were discontinued and there was no

obligation to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioners led evidence. They submitted

documents to establish that they worked for 240 days in a calendar

year. The learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the

petitioners failed to establish that they worked for 240 days in a

calendar year. Consequently, the statement of the claim filed by the

petitioners was dismissed.

4. Mr. Somkant Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

would argue that the workmen filed relevant documents before the

learned Labour Court to demonstrate that they worked for 240 days

but their 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 petitioners. He would contend that the learned Labour

Court failed to appreciate the documents and evidence led by the

petitioners. 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 petitioners failed to prove the

fact that they 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 petitioners could not prove

the fact that they worked for 240 days in a calendar year. He would

also submit that according to the document submitted by the

petitioners themselves, most of the petitioners worked for 25-26 days

in a calendar year and their engagement was on a need basis. He

would further contend that the petitioners were not appointed against

the vacant and sanctioned posts, 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 petitioners, 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 petitions deserve to be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents.

7. Admittedly, the petitioners were engaged as daily rated employees

under the respondent on different dates between 2007 and 2010. In

the year 2010, their 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

petitioners 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 petitioners failed to produce documentary

evidence to establish the fact that they worked for 240 days in a

calendar year. The document submitted by the petitioners and

scrutinized by the learned Labour Court would show that they worked

for less than 240 days in a calendar year. It appears that the

engagement of the petitioners was on a need basis. The period for

which the petitioners worked in the preceding 12 months as calculated

by the learned Labour Court is reproduced herein below:-

Petitioner - Pramod Yadav in WPL No. 121/2019 Appointed as Terminated As per Affidavit, Order 18 Rule 4 Labour CPC 2007-2010 17.10.2010 11.02.2010 - 13.02.2010 = 03 days

15.02.2010 - 20.02.2010 = 06 days 22.02.2010 - 27.02.2010= 06 days 01.03.2010 - 02.03.2010 = 02 days 12.04.2010 - 17.04.2010= 06 days 19.04.2010 - 21.04.2010= 03 days He worked for: 26 days

Petitioner - Nihali Sahu @ Nihali Ram Sahu in WPL No. 125/2019 Appointed as Terminated As per Affidavit, Order 18 Rule 4 Labour CPC 1999-2010 17.10.2010 He worked for : 25 days in the month of October, 2004

Petitioner - Gopi Yadav in WPL No. 126/2019 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

Petitioner - Satish Yadav @ Satish Kumar Yadav in WPL No.

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 153 days.

Petitioner - Bhuneshwar Nishad in WPL No. 128/2019 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

Petitioner - Ramshankar in WPL No. 129/2019 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 And

Petitioner - Praveen in WPL No. 130/2019 Appointed as Terminated As per Affidavit, Order 18 Rule 4 Labour CPC 2003-2010 17.10.2010 He worked for : 25 days in the month of October, 2004

9. As the petitioners were not appointed against sanctioned and vacant

posts, no documents could be produced to prove the fact that they

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 petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. No

costs.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti