State Of Chhattisgarh vs Pardeshi Ram
2025 Latest Caselaw 817 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

State Of Chhattisgarh vs Pardeshi Ram on 29 July, 2025

                                               1




                                                              2025:CGHC:36898

                                                                             NAFR

SMT                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NIRMALA
RAO                                   WPL No. 94 of 2015
          1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Public
          Works, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh.,
          Chhattisgarh
          2 - The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Khairagarh,
          District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
          3 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Sub Division No. 1,
          Chhuikhadan District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon,
          Chhattisgarh
                                                                      ... Petitioner(s)
                                             versus
          1 - Pardeshi Ram S/o Savatram R/o Village Birutola, P.S. And Tahsil
          Chhuikhadan      District    Rajnandgaon      Chhattisgarh,      Chhattisgarh
          2 - Smt. Duj Bai W/o Pardeshi Ram R/o Village Birutola, P.S. And Tahsil
          Chhuikhadan District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon,
          Chhattisgarh
          3 - Daulat Ram S/o Shri Dhanush Ram R/o Village Birutola, P.S. And Tahsil
          Chhuikhadan District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon,
          Chhattisgarh
          4 - Ganga Ram S/o Ram Biraj R/o Village Birutola, P.S. And Tahsil
          Chhuikhadan District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon,
          Chhattisgarh
          5 - Kushal Ram S/o Shri Sanvat Ram R/o Village Budhanbhath, P.S. And
          Tahsil Chhuikhadan District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District :
          Rajnandgaon,                                                     Chhattisgarh
          6 - Arun Singh S/o Shri Ram Ji R/o Village Jhiriya, P.S. And Tahsil
          Chhuikhadan District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon,
          Chhattisgarh
          7 - Prem Lal S/o Shri Tiharu Ram R/o Village Jhiriya, P.S. And Tahsil
          Chhuikhadan District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon,
          Chhattisgarh
          8 - Dinesh S/o Shri Dukhuram R/o Village Jhiriya, P.S. And Tahsil
          Chhuikhadan District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon,
          Chhattisgarh
          9 - Uttam Singh S/o Shri Jhanaku R/o Village Jhiriya, P.S. And Tahsil
          Chhuikhadan District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon,
          Chhattisgarh
          10 - Narottam Singh S/o Shri Guhara Ram R/o Village Jhiriya, P.S. And Tahsil
          Chhuikhadan District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon,
          Chhattisgarh
                                        2

11 - The Labour Court, Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh,
District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
                                                    ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioners/ State : Shri Pramod Shrivastava, Dy.G.A. For Respondents No.1, 3 to 10: Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : None present though served.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29.07.2025

1. The petitioner has challenged the award passed by the learned Labour

Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, Rajnandgaon, in Case

No.198/I.D.Act/Reference/2012.

2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the private respondents

were engaged as daily-rated employees under the petitioners in 1990,

and they continuously worked till 2005 and thereafter, their services

were discontinued without the issuance of a show-cause notice and

without making the payment of retrenchment allowance. Although an

application was moved before the Assistant Labour Officer to refer the

matter, no cognisance was taken by the authority concerned;

consequently, the private respondents/workmen approached the

concerned Labour Court directly under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act, 1947').

3. In the statement of claim, the workmen pleaded that they worked as

daily-rated employees under the petitioners from 1990 to 2005 and

thereafter, their services were discontinued without any reason or

issuance of orders. It is further pleaded that no retrenchment allowance

was paid to them. The petitioners filed their written statement denying

the contents of the claim. The learned Labour Court framed issues.

The workmen led their evidence, repeating the contents of their

claim. They also moved the applications before the petitioners under

the Right to Information Act seeking muster rolls, attendance registers

and the documents relating to payment of wages, which were not

supplied by the department. These RTI applications were placed

before the learned Labour Court. The Learned Labour Court

considered the oral and documentary evidence and recorded findings

that the workmen had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar

year, and their termination was illegal. Accordingly, the Court passed

an order for their reinstatement without back wages.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the private

respondents were not engaged against the sanctioned and vacant

posts; therefore, the order of reinstatement is bad in law. He would

further submit that there was no obligation on the part of the petitioners

to comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, 1947, as

retrenchment allowance was paid to the workmen. He would pray to

set aside the award.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private

respondents/workmen would oppose the submissions made by counsel

for the petitioners. Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate, would submit that

the copies of the muster rolls, attendance register, leave register and

payment register were in the possession of the petitioners/department

but were not produced, despite the applications under the Right to

Information being moved. He would contend that the learned Labour

Court rightly drew an adverse inference against the department. He

would further submit that the department failed to examine any

witnesses to substantiate the contents of the written statement. He

would contend that the private respondents/workmen proved their case

by leading oral and documentary evidence. He would contend that the

petition deserves to be dismissed.

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

documents present on the record.

7. A perusal of the documents would show that the private

respondents/workmen moved applications under the RTI Act seeking

copies of the muster rolls, attendance register, leave register and

payment of wages register, but these documents were not supplied by

the department. Furthermore, the petitioners/department failed to

adduce evidence before the learned Labour Court, and therefore, the

contents of the written statement remained unproven. The private

respondents/workmen adduced oral and documentary evidence to

prove the fact that they worked for more than 240 days in a calendar

year and their services were terminated contrary to the provisions of

Section 25F of the Act, 1947. Since the petitioners failed to supply the

required documents, the learned Labour Court rightly drew an adverse

inference against them.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of R.M. Yellatti vs. The

Asst. Executive Engineer, JT 2005 (9) SC 340, has held as under:-

"Analyzing the above decisions of this court, it is clear that the provisions of the Evidence Act in terms do not apply to the proceedings under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, applying general principles and on reading the aforestated judgments, we find that this court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman stepping in the

witness box. This burden is discharged upon the workman adducing cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of daily waged earner, there will be no letter of appointment or termination. There will also be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus in most cases, the workman (claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before the court the nominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on facts of each case. The above decisions however make it clear that mere affidavits or self-serving statements made by the claimant/workman will not suffice in the matter of discharge of the burden placed by law on the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. The above judgments further lay down that mere non- production of muster rolls per se without any plea of suppression by the claimant workman will not be the ground for the tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the management. Lastly, the above judgments lay down the basic principle, namely, that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution will not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the labour court unless they are perverse. This exercise will depend upon facts of each case."

9. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any

good ground to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, this petition fails

and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi