Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Ramayan Singh on 15 September, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:47418
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPL No. 90 of 2017
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh The Petitioner No.1 was Not A Party
Before The Learned Labour Court But Has Been Impleaded As Petitioner No. 1 In
The Instant Petition As The Proper Course Is To Implead The State Government
Through The Secretary Of The Concerned Department, Chhattisgarh
2 - The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry, Forest Division Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3 - The Forest Extension Officer, Research And Extension Unit Bilha, Post Bilha,
District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Ramayan Singh S/o Pardeshi Ram Gond, R/o Village And Post Salka, Nawagaon,
Tahsil Kargiroad Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
2 - The Labour Judge, Under Industrial Disputes Act, Labour Court, Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy.G.A.
For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Upasana Sethi, Advocate
({Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput})
Order on Board
15/09/2025
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the award
dated 13/10/2016 (published on 16/11/2016) Annexure P/1 passed in case
No.23/I.D.Act/Ref./2012 by the Labour Court, CG. By the impugned award,
respondent No.1 was reinstated on his earlier post i.e. Watchman in the office of
petitioner No.3 without any backwages.
2. Facts which emerge from the writ petition is that respondent No.1 was
working with petitioners from the year 1996 and continued to work there till
21/11/2011. It appears that thereafter by an oral order, his services were
terminated and was removed from service. Assailing the same, statement of claim
was preferred by respondent No.1 before the Labour Court, Bilaspur under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 inter alia pleading that removal of the respondent
No.1 is bad in law and he has worked for more than 16 years satisfactorily and
attained the status of permanent employee. Retrenchment of respondent No.1 is in
violation of 25 (g) and 25 (f) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The statement of
claim was resisted by the petitioner inter alia pleading that the petitioner only
worked from the year 1996 till 2006 and in all respective years, he has never
worked more than 240 days. Therefore, the claim application deserves to be
dismissed.
3. Respective parties led their evidence before the learned Labour Court and
by the impugned order, the petitioner was reinstated without backwages.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Labour Court
committed an error of law in allowing the statement of claim of respondent No.1
when it is proved on record that he never worked for more than 240 days.
Therefore, cannot hold the status of permanent employee. Therefore, there was no
occasion for the learned Labour Court to allow the statement of claim altering
reinstatement of respondent No.2.
5. Opposing the above submission, learned counsel for respondent No.2
submits that the learned Labour Court has meticulously examined the material
available on record and came to a conclusion that respondent No.1 continued to
work from 1996 till 2011. The respondents have not filed any muster roll to
suggest that after 2006, he was not working till 2011. Therefore, the finding
recorded by the learned Labour Court is illegal.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. The case of the respondent No.1 before the Labour Court was that he was
working with the petitioner from 1996 till 21/11/2011 whereas the case of the
petitioner / state is that he only worked from 1996 till 2006 and that too less than
240 days and never crossed 240 working days during these period. On perusal of
record and also perusal of impugned award, it appears that the Labour Court gave
a finding that the petitioner herein has not filed any muster roll, voucher etc. from
2006 to 2011. Statement of respondent No.1 was also considered that he continued
to work with the petitioners and completed 240 days continuously. Learned
Labour Court also gave a finding that this could not be disputed by the petitioners
and statement of the witness recorded by the petitioner was not posted at the time
when the petitioner was alleged to have been working with the petitioner. Learned
Labour Court also gave a finding that when respondent No.1 was working with
the petitioner / department, he was not posted in that department and what kind of
work was being performed by respondent No.1. It has been further observed that
the project was for 5 years and for that project only, the respondent No.1 was
employed and no document in that regard has been filed.
8. On the basis of the analysis of the evidence available on record, learned
Labour Court gave a finding that prior to November, 2011, respondent No.1 had
worked continuously for 240 days in one calendar year. Thereafter, without giving
one month notice and retrenchment compensation, his services were terminated
which amounts to retrenchment under Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Thereafter, relying upon the judgment of this Court passed in WPL No.84/2014
dated 08/09/2016 in the case of State of Chhattisgarh Through Divisional
Forest Officer v. Pyarelal and ors., respondent No.2 was found to be eligible for
reinstatement and thus the impugned award was passed.
9. After giving thoughtful consideration to the evidence available on record
and also the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court, this Court is of the
opinion that no interference is warranted by this Court to the impugned award.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
({Sachin Singh Rajput})
JUDGE
Deepti
Digitally
signed by
DEEPTI
DEEPTI HARIKUMAR
HARIKUMAR Date:
2025.09.18
17:04:37
+0530
