State Of Chhattisgarh vs Pramod Kumar Yadav
2025 Latest Caselaw 4473 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

State Of Chhattisgarh vs Pramod Kumar Yadav on 16 September, 2025

                                                 1




                                                                   2025:CGHC:47634


                                                                                      NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                   WPL No. 160 of 2022


1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department,
Mahanadi     Bhawan,     Mantralaya,      Naya    Raipur,   District   :   Raipur,   Chhattisgarh


2 - The Engineer-In-Chief, Public Health Engineering Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa
Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh


3 - The Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering, Near Water Tank, Kududand,
Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                ... Petitioner(s)


                                               versus


1 - Pramod Kumar Yadav S/o Late Mitthu Lal Yadav, R/o Kenwatpara, Sakri, Tahsil
Takhatpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                              ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Shri R.K.Gupta, Addl. Adv. Gen. For Respondent(s) : Shri Abhishek Singh, Advocaste

({Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput})

Order on Board

16/09/2025

The petitioners have challenged the award dated 26/03/2022 passed in case No.08/I.D.Act/Ref/2017 under the Industrial Disputes Act by the learned Labour Court, Bilaspur, CG.

2. The statement of claim under the Industrial Disputes Act was presented before the learned Labour Court for declaring the retrenchment of the petitioner as illegal and for reinstatement with backwages. The case of the respondent before the Labour Court was that he was appointed on the post of Driver on the vacant post on 01/03/2006 and at the time of his retrenchment, he was working under the petitioner. His work was satisfactory. He was never given punishment or warning. His services were continued from 01/03/2006 to 06/03/2015 continuously and before his retrenchment, in one calender year, he worked for more than 240 days. He was being paid by A-Roll and without any valid reason, by an oral order, he was retrenched on 06/03/2015. No reason was assigned and no notice was given before his retrenchment.

3. On the basis of above, it has been pleaded that the petitioners have not adhere to the provisions contained in Section 25g, 25f, 25n of the Industrial Disputes Act. Statement of claim was resisted by the petitioners herein inter alia pleading that the services of the petitioner was engaged on account of necessity of oral instructions. He never worked with the petitioners from 01/03/2006 to 06/03/2015, neither he was paid through A-roll. He was appointed as daily wager and the entire wages have been paid. Therefore, the prayer was made for dismissal of the statement of claim.

4. Learned Labour Court framed five issues and decided issue Nos.2 to 4 as positive, issue No.1 as negative and relief was granted for reinstatement of the respondent without any backwages vide the impugned order which led to filing of this writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/State would submit that the workmen failed to adduce clinching evidence to prove that respondent No.1 worked for 240 days in a calender year. He would further submit that the learned Labour Court committed an error of law while drawing adverse inference against the employer when the employer failed to produce the hand receipt or attendance register or a document to substantiate that the respondent had worked for less than 240 days in a calender year. He would submit that the workman was under an obligation to prove the fact that he worked for 240 days in a calender year. He would further contend that sufficient opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioners

by the learned Labour Court. Therefore, he prays that the impugned award may be set aside and the statement of claim filed by the respondent be dismissed.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. He would submit that the employer failed to produce relevant documents, therefore, an adverse inference was drawn. He further submits that the workmen was able to prove that he was removed contrary to the provisions contained in Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act and he had worked for more than 240 days in a calender year. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.M. Yellati v. Assistant Executive Engineer, 2005 AIR SCW 6103 wherein it was held that the management is duty bound to produce the nominal muster roll for the relevant period when it was summoned to do so. The paragraph is reproduced herein below-

"18. Now applying the above decision to the facts of the present case, we find that the workman herein had stepped in the witness box. He had called upon the management to produce the nominal muster rolls for the period commencing from 22.11.1988 to 20.6.1994. This period is the period borne out by the certificate (Ex.W1) issued by the former Asstt. Executive Engineer. The evidence in rebuttal from the side of the management needs to be noticed. The management produced five nominal muster rolls (NMRs), out of which 3 NMRs, Ex.M1, Ex.M2 and Ex.M3, did not even relate to the concerned period. The relevant NMRs produced by the management were Ex.M4 and Ex.M5, which indicated that the workmen had worked for 43 days during the period 21.1.1994 to 20.2.1994 and 21.3.1994 to 20.4.1994 respectively. There is no explanation from the side of the management as to why for the remaining period the nominal muster rolls were not produced. The Labour Court has rightly held that there is nothing to disbelieve the certificate (Ex.W1). The High Court in its impugned judgment has not given reasons for discarding the said certificate. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have interfered with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court and confirmed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 7.6.2000 in writ petition no.17636 of 2000. This is not, therefore, a case where the allegations of the workman are founded merely on an affidavit. He has produced cogent evidence in support of his case. The workman was working in SD-1, Athani and Ex.W1 was issued by the former Asstt. Executive Engineer, Hipparagi Dam Construction Division No.1, Athani-

591304. In the present case, the defence of the management was that although Ex.W1 refers to the period 22.11.1988 to 20.6.1994, the workman had not worked as a daily wager on all days during that period. If so, the management was duty bound to produce before the Labour Court the nominal muster rolls for the relevant period, particularly when it was summoned to do so. We are not placing this judgment on the shifting of the burden. We are not placing this case on drawing of adverse inference. In the present case, we are of the view that the workman had stepped in the witness box and his case that he had worked for 240 days in a given year was supported by the certificate (Ex.W1). In the circumstances, the Division Bench of the High Court had erred in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact."

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. The case of the respondent before the learned Labour Court is that he was appointed in the year 2006 as driver on a vacant post however, issue no.1 framed in this regard has been negated by learned Labour Court. The evidence was led by the respondent to show that he had worked for 240 days and his period of work was from 2006 to 2015. According to the respondent, he was retrenched orally without giving any show cause notice or reason or rhyme. The defence which was taken by the petitioner herein is that the respondent had only worked for 50 days and as and when the necessity arises, his services were engaged, for which the retiral wages had already been paid. In the absence of any documentary evidence, learned Tribunal in paragraph 12 of the impugned award has categorically held that the petitioners herein were directed to present the hand receipt with respect to the wages of the respondent herein. It has also been observed that the petitioners herein are also avoiding to furnish the hand receipt. Apart from this, it has also been observed that as to on what basis the petitioners herein are stating that the respondent has only worked for 50 days.

9. Perusal of the impugned order does not reflect that any muster roll or attendance register or any document to substantiate was placed on record to say that the respondent has only worked for 50 days. Learned Labour Court gave a categorical finding in issue No.3 that the retrenchment of the respondent was illegal and gave a finding that the respondent was continuing in employment for more than 240 days in one calender year before he was retrenched. The finding

does not appear to be contrary or perverse warranting interference by this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE

Deepti

Digitally signed by DEEPTI DEEPTI HARIKUMAR HARIKUMAR Date:

2025.09.19 15:11:58 +0530