Chattisgarh High Court
Pramod Kumar vs Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon on 25 June, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:27793
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SMT WPL No. 122 of 2019
NIRMALA
RAO
1 - Pramod Kumar S/o Shri Beni Madhav Sahu Aged About 44 Years
R/o Village Bhatagaon, Post Bhedikala, Tahsil And District-
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
--- Petitioner
Versus
1 - Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon Through Its Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
25/06/2025
1. The petitioner has challenged the award passed by the learned Labour
Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, Rajnandgaon (C.G) in Case
No. 142/I.D.Act/2011/Ref dated 4.2.2019 (pronounced on 7.3.2019),
whereby the statement of claim filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The facts of the present case are that an application was made by the
petitioner before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and thereafter,
the appropriate Government referred the matter under the provisions
of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act in the year 2011. The sum
and substance of the statement of claim filed by the petitioner is that
he was engaged by the respondent department as a daily-rated
labourer in the year 2004 and was receiving 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 payment of
retrenchment allowance, his services were discontinued. It was further
pleaded that the respondent failed to comply with the mandatory
provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner
sought reinstatement along with full back wages.
3. The respondent/employer filed a reply, taking a specific stand that the
petitioner was engaged on a need basis. It is further pleaded that
since there was no requirement for his services, the petitioner's
engagement was discontinued and hence there was no obligation to
comply with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner
led evidence and submitted documents to establish that he worked for
240 days in a calendar year. However, the learned Labour Court came
to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish this fact.
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 workman submitted relevant documents before
the learned Labour Court to demonstrate that he worked for 240 days
in a calendar year, but his services were terminated in contravention 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
inquiry was conducted. It is also argued that no retrenchment
compensation was paid nor was any notice or one month's salary in
lieu of notice provided under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes
Act given to him. He would contend that the learned Labour Court
failed to appreciate the documents and evidence adduced by the
petitioner. It is also argued that the respondent filed a reply but it failed
to lead any evidence, which is fatal to the employer's case.
5. On the other hand, 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 examined the documents and rightly concluded
that the petitioner could not prove the claim. According to the
documents submitted by the petitioner himself, most of the employees
worked only for 25-26 days in a calendar year, and their engagement
was purely on a need basis. He would further contend that the
petitioner was not appointed against any 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 upon the workman 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 a daily-rated employee
under the respondent from the year 2004 to 2010. In the year 2010,
his services were discontinued. He worked for 25 days in the month of
October, 2004. Thereafter, an application was moved before the
Assistant Labour Commissioner, and the appropriate government
referred the matter under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Before the learned Labour Court, the petitioner filed a statement of
claim along with documents and also adduced oral evidence. The
respondent filed a reply but failed to lead any evidence. It is a well-
settled principle of law that the burden lies upon the petitioner/plaintiff
to prove his case and he cannot take the shelter of the
respondent/defendant.
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 the petitioner
worked for less than 240 days in a calendar year. It appears that his
engagement was purely on a need basis.
9. Since the petitioner was not appointed against a sanctioned and
vacant post and failed to produce any document to prove that he
worked for 240 days in a calendar year, there was no obligation upon
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 considered opinion, no case is made out for
interference.
11. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Nimmi
