Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Mamta Verma vs Director, Tribal Research And Training ... on 8 September, 2025

                                        1




Digitally signed                                        2025:CGHC:45557
by RAMESH
KUMAR VATTI
Date: 2025.09.11                                                         NAFR
15:28:49 +0530

                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                              WPL No. 24 of 2024

* - Ram Kumar Sahu S/o Late Visnuram Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o
Satyam Kirana Stores, Ravana Bhatha, Mandir Hasaud, Tehsil - Arang,
District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                      --- Petitioner
                                    Versus
1 - Director, Tribal Research And Training Institute, Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay
Nagar, Sector -4, Raipur, Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Secretary, Union Of India, Ministry Of Tribal Affairs, Government Of India,
Shastri Bhawan, R.P. Road, New Delhi.
                                                               --- Respondents

And

* - Ku. Vandana Verma D/o Shri Loknath Verma Aged About 32 Years R/o Village And Post Barbanda, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner Versus

1 - Director, Tribal Research And Training Institute Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Sector-4 Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Secretary Union Of India, Ministry Of Tribal Affairs, Govt. Of India, Shastri Bhawan, R.P. Road, New Delhi

--- Respondents And

* - Ku. Shika Das D/o Late Sulin Das Aged About 34 Years R/o Beside Maruti Life Styale, Krishan Nagar, Kota, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner Versus

1 - Director, Tribal Research And Training Institute, Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Sector -4, Raipur, Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Secretary, Union Of India, Ministry Of Tribal Affairs, Government Of India, Shastri Bhawan, R.P. Road, New Delhi.

--- Respondents And

* - Smt. Mamta Verma W/o Shri Kailash Verma Aged About 37 Years Resident C/o Archana Yadu, M/7 Kota Colony, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner Versus 1 - Director, Tribal Research And Training Institute Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Sector-4 Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Secretary Union Of India, Ministry Of Tribal Affairs, Govt. Of India, Shastri Bhawan, R.P. Road, New Delhi

--- Respondents And

* - Ku. Neha Rangari D/o Shri S.R. Rangari Aged About 31 Years R/o Station Maroda, B.R.P. Colony Bhilai, Distt. Durg, C.G.

---Petitioner Versus 1 - Director, Tribal Research And Training Instritute, Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Sector-4 Raipur, Teh. And Distt. Raipur, C.G. 2 - Secretary Union Of India, Ministry Of Tribal Affairs, Govt. Of India, Shastri Bhawan, R.P, Road, New Delh

--- Respondents And

* - Devendra Chandrakar S/o Shri Krishna Lal Chandrakar Aged About 36 Years Address- Near Shri Sai Vihar Colony Gurudwara, Mahavir Nagar, Puraina, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner Versus 1 - Director, Tribal Research And Training Institute Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Sector- 4, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur 2 - Secretary Union Of India, Ministry Of Tribal Affairs, Govt. Of India, Shastri Bhawan, R.P. Road, New Delhi.

--- Respondents

For Petitioners : Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate

For Respondent No. 1 : None, though served

For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Central Government Counsel

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08/09/2025

1. WPL No. 24/2024; WPL No. 31/2024; WPL No. 32/2024 are admitted

petitions.

2. WPL No. 43/2024; WPL No. 45/2024 and WPL No. 48/2024 are

admitted for hearing.

3. Since the common issues of law and facts are involved in the above

captioned petitions preferred by the petitioners, therefore, they are

being disposed of by this common order.

4. In these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the awards passed

by the learned Labour Court, No. 1, Raipur (C.G.) dated 26.09.2023;

27.09.2023 and 29.09.2023 in separate Case Nos.

22/I.D.Act/2017/Reference; 22/I.D.Act/2019/Reference; 23/I.D.Act/

2019/Reference; 21/I.D.Act/2019/Reference; 20/I.D.Act/2019/

Reference and 21/I.D.Act/2017/ Reference; whereby references have

been answered against the petitioners.

5. The facts of the case are that the petitioners were deployed to the

posts of Survey Workers in Tribal Research and Training Institute,

Raipur between 01.02.2012 to 30.09.2012 and 01.12.2014 to

30.06.2016; 11.05.2012 to 30.06.2016 and 01.10.2012 to 30.06.2016

respectively. They were getting honorarium of Rs.8,000/- per month.

They were deployed for survey of forest rights lease, caste verification

and field studies of different tribal groups. Their services were

discontinued on 30.06.2016 without complying with the provisions of

Section 25 of the I.D. Act. The complaints were moved to the Assistant

Labour Commissioner and thereafter the references were made by the

competent Government according to the provisions of Section 10 of

the I.D. Act to the concerned Labour Court.

6. Respondent No. 1 filed reply to statement of claims, the learned

Labour Court framed issues, parties led evidence and thereafter

award(s) were passed by the learned Labour Court, whereby the

references were decided in negative against the petitioners' workmen.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently argue

that the petitioners were engaged to the post of Survey Workers under

respondent No. 1 and they worked from 1st February, 2012 till

30.06.2016. He would contend that initially the petitioners were getting

honorarium of Rs.8,000/- per month and it was enhanced to

Rs.12,000/- by the department. He would submit that respondent No.1

through telephonic instructions discontinued their service, without

affording any opportunity of hearing; without making payment of

retrenchment allowances; without complying with the provisions of

Section 25 F, H and N of the I.D. Act. He would pray to set aside the

award(s) passed by the learned Labour Court.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of

Surendra Kumar Verma Vs. Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, New Delhi, reported in 1980 (4) SCC

443 and Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation

Limited Vs. Mamni, reported in 2006 (9) SCC 434.

9. On the other hand, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for

respondent No. 2 would oppose the submissions made by learned

counsel for the petitioners. He would fairly submit that the petitioners

were engaged for specific scheme for survey of forest rights, caste

verification and field studies pursuant to order issued by the Ministry of

Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel

and Training), Government of India dated 11.04.2012. He would submit

that after completion of the survey work, the services of the petitioners

were not required, therefore, discontinued by respondent No. 1. He

would submit that as the services of the petitioners were need basis,

therefore, the petitioners cannot take shelter on the provisions of

Section 25 of the I.D. Act. He would contend that these petitions

deserve to be dismissed.

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

documents.

11. In Surendra Kumar Verma (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in

Para-9, held as under:-

"[9] Now, S. 25-B was not always so worded. Prior to Act 36 of 1964, it read as follows :-

"For the purposes of Section 25-C and 25-F, a workman who, during a period of twelve calendar months, has actually worked in an industry for not less than two hundred and forty days shall be deemed to have completed on year's continuous service in the industry.

Explanation. ...................."

The difference between old 25-B and present 25- B is patent. The clause "where a workman is not in continuous service.. ... for a period of one year" with which present S. 25-B (2) so significantly begins, was equally significantly absent from old S. 25-B. Of the same degree of significance was the circumstance that prior to

Act 36 of 1964 the expression "Continuous Service" was separately defined by S. 2 (eee) as follows:-

"(eee) 'continuous service' means uninterrupted service, and includes service which may be interrupted merely on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman."

Section 2 (eee) was omitted by the same Act 36 of 1964 which recast S. 25-B. Section 25-B as it read prior to Act 36 of 1964, in the light of the then existing Section 2 (eee), certainly lent itself to the construction that a workman had to be in the service of the employer for a period of one year and should have worked for not less than 240 days before the could claim to have completed one year's completed service so as to attract the provisions of S. 25-F. That precisely was what was decided by this Court in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (AIR 1963 SC 1914). The Court said :

"On the plain terms of section (S. 25-F) only a workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer is entitled to its benefit. 'Continuous Service' is defined in S. 2. (eee) as meaning uninterrupted service, and includes service which may be interrupted merely on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman. What is meant by "one year of continuous service" has been defined in S. 25B. Under this section a workman who during a period of twelve calender months has actually worked, in an industry for not less than 240 days shall be deemed to have completed service in the industry. xxx xxx The position (therefore) is that during a period of employment for less than 11 calender months these two persons worked for more than 240 days. In our opinion that would that would not satisfy the requirement of S. 25B. Before a workman can be considered to have completed one year of continuous service in an industry it must be shown first that be was employed for a period of not less than 12 calender months and, next that during those 12 calendar months had worked for not less than

240 days. Where, as in the present case, the workmen have not at all been employed for a period of 12 calendar months it becomes unnecessary to examine whether the actual days of work numbered 240 days or more".

Act 36 of 1964 has drastically changed the position. S. 2 (eee) has been repealed and S. 25- B (2) now begins with the clause "where a workman is not a continuous service.......... For a period of one year". These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a workman who has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months; it is not necessary that he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year. So we hold that Usha Kumari and Madhu Bala are in the same position as the other appellants."

12. With regard to judgments cited by the learned counsel for the

petitioners, in the present batch of cases, the petitioners were

engaged for specific purpose for specific period, therefore, the above

cited judgments are distinguishable from the facts of the present case.

13. Annexure P-34 of the Labour Court record would show that the

petitioners were deployed for specific survey with regard to forest

rights, verification of caste status, and filed studies. The document

would reveal that teams were constituted by respondent No.1 to

conduct survey in different areas. The work of survey continued for

period of four years and in between the honorarium payable to the

petitioners was extended from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.12,000/-. The record

would show that no advertisement was issued, the petitioners were