Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr vs Loknath And Anr on 9 July, 2025
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPL No. 28 of 2014
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. Through Secretary, Health
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Ps
Mandir Hasaud, Distt Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh
2 - The Malaria Officer, District Hospital, Rajnandgaon, Distt
Rajnandgaon, Cg, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Raja Ram S/o Mehattar Lodhi R/o Village Tekopur Kala, Tah
Khairagarh, Ps Khairagarh, Distt Rajnandgaon, Cg, Chhattisgarh
2 - Anil Kumar S/o Premlal Verma R/o Village Tekapur Kala, Tah
Khairagarh, Ps Khairagarh, Distt Rajnandgaon, Cg, District :
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
3 - Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, Distt
Rajnandgaon, Cg, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
WPL No. 29 of 2014
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health Department,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Ps Mandir
Hasaud, Raipur, Distt Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh
2 – The Malaria Officer, District Hospital, Rajnandgaon, Distt
Rajnandgaon, Cg
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 – Loknath, S/o Ramratan Lodhi, R/o Budhanbhat, Tah
Chhuikhadan, Ps Chhuikhadan, Distt Rajnandgaon, Cg,
Chhattisgarh
2 – Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, Distt
Rajnandgaon, Cg, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
-2-
— Respondent(s)
WPL No. 30 of 2014
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Health Department,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Ps Mandir
Hasaud, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh
2 – The Chief Medical And Health Officer, District Hospital,
Rajnandgaon, Distt Rajnandgaon, Cg
3 – The Malaria Officer, District Hospital, Rajnandgaon, Distt
Rajnandgaon, Cg
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 – Dulichand Lodhi S/o Ram Sai Lodhi, R/ Kushiyari,tah
Khairagarh, Ps Khairagarh, Distt Rajnandgaon, Cg, Chhattisgarh
2 – Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, Distt
Rajnandgaon, Cg, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
—- Respondents
For Petitioners/State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional A.G.
For Respondents/Workmen: Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate holding
the brief of Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
09.07.2025
1. In these cases, the petitioners have challenged the awards
passed by the learned Labour Court, Rajnandgaon in Case
No.104/I.D. Act/Reference/2009, dated 29.02.2012, in Case
No.177/I.D. Act/Reference/2009, dated 29.02.2012 and in
Case No.176/I.D. Act/Reference/2009, dated 23.04.2012
respectively, whereby, the Reference made by the Competent
Government was decided in affirmative in favour of workmen
3
and the awards of reinstatement in service without back-
wages have been passed.
2. The facts of the present case are that the services of
respondents/workmen, who were working with the petitioners,
were discontinued sometime in the year 2008. The matter
was referred by the State of Chhattisgarh vide letter dated
26.11.2009 to the learned Labour Court as to whether the
removal of workmen is valid and legal and to what relief they
are entitled.
3. The workmen filed a statement of claim before the learned
Labour Court in the year 2010. The workmen specifically
pleaded that they were engaged by the petitioners for DDT
spray work at various places in the years 1987, 1990 and
1996 respectively. They further pleaded that their services
were discontinued in the year 2007 contrary to the provisions
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’)
and without the issuance of notice and without making
payment of retrenchment allowances. They also pleaded that
they were getting a salary of Rs.1500/- per month. In para 5,
they pleaded that they worked for more than 240 days in a
calendar year. The workmen further pleaded that their
services had been discontinued contrary to the provisions of
Section 25-F of the Act of 1947.
4. The petitioners filed their written statement and denied the
-4-
averments made in the statement of claims. They pleaded
that the engagement of the workmen was on a need basis
and contractual. It is also stated in the written statements that
the workmen were engaged to spray DDT in the rainy season
and they never worked for 240 days in a calendar year. The
State further pleaded in the written statement that the
provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 would not attract.
5. The parties led their evidence. Affidavits under Order 18 Rule
4 of the CPC were filed by the workmen wherein they again
stated that they worked for more than 240 days in a calendar
year though they failed to prove this fact by leading clinching
evidence.
6. The learned Labour Court vide awards dated 29.02.2012 and
23.04.2012 held that the workmen worked for more than 150
days in a calendar year and they are entitled to the
continuation of services according to the provisions of Section
25-B of the Act of 1947. Accordingly, the learned Labour Court
allowed the statement of claims and passed the awards for
reinstatement without back-wages vide awards dated
29.02.2012 & 23.04.2012.
7. Mr. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for
the State/petitioners would submit that the workmen
specifically pleaded in their statement of claims and further in
affidavits filed under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC that they
5
worked for 240 days in a calendar year. He would further
submit that the learned Labour Court recorded a finding that
the workmen worked for 153 days within a period of six
months and according to the provisions of Section 25-B of the
Act of 1947, they are entitled to get the benefit of Section 25-F
of the Act of 1947. He would also submit that when there was
no pleading and evidence to the effect that the workmen
worked for 240 days in a calendar year, there was no
occasion for the learned Labour Court to pass awards in
favour of workmen. He would pray to set aside the awards
passed by the learned Labour Court dated 29.02.2012 &
23.04.2012.
8. On the other hand, Ms. Singh, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents/workmen would oppose the submissions
made by Mr. Gupta. She would submit that the workmen
pleaded and proved the fact that they worked for more than
240 days in a calendar year. She would further submit that the
learned labour Court rightly applied the provisions of Section
25-B of the Act of 1947 to count the continuous services of the
workmen. She would also submit that the workmen were in
continuous service for a period of more than 240 days in a
calendar year and their services were uninterrupted. She
would contend that according to the provisions of Section 25-
B(2)(b) of the Act of 1947, a workman who worked for a
-6-
period of six months and his employment was not less than
120 days, his services would be treated as continuous. She
would further contend that the conditions precedent to the
retrenchment of workmen were not followed by the
petitioners. It is also contended that the workmen were not
given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for
retrenchment, they were not paid retrenchment compensation
and notices in a prescribed manner were also not served. She
would also state that the learned Labour Court has rightly
passed awards in favour of the workmen. She would state
that these petitions deserve to be dismissed.
9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the record.
10. A perusal of the record would show that in the years
1987, 1990 and 1990, the workmen were engaged in the work
of DDT spray. It appears that their work was seasonal. The
record would further show that they worked for 150-155 days
in a calendar year. They were being paid Rs.1500/- per month
looking to their nature of work. Their services were
discontinued on different dates and thereafter, applications
were made to the appropriate government and a reference
was made by the appropriate Government to the concerned
Labour Court.
11. The statement of claim would show that the respondents
7
worked for 240 days in a calendar year. The workmen have
pleaded this fact in para 5 of the statement of claim. They
claimed reinstatement with back-wages according to the
provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. In affidavits filed
under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC, they have categorically
stated that they worked for more than 240 days. The
documents and evidence available on the record would also
show that the workmen could not prove the fact that they
worked for 240 days in a calendar year.
12. Learned Labour Court while dealing with issues Nos.1 &
2 held that the respondents/workmen worked for 150-155
days in a period of 6 months and according to the provisions
of Section 25-B(2)(b) of the Act of 1947, the said period can
be taken into consideration and it would amount to continuous
service if the workmen had worked for 120 days in a period of
6 months.
13. Learned Labour Court applied the provisions of Section
25-B of the Act of 1947 while extending the benefit of
provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 in favour of the
workmen.
14. In the present case, the workmen have specifically
pleaded in their statement of claim and affidavits filed under
Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC that they worked for more than
240 days in a calendar year, therefore, there was no occasion
-8-
for the learned Labour Court to record contrary findings with
regard to the continuous engagement. Further, the Court
below passed the awards in favour of the workmen
considering the facts and the provisions of law, which were
not pleaded by the workmen.
15. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and
evidence and pleadings in the statement of claim, the awards
passed by the learned Labour Court dated 29.02.2012 &
23.04.2012 are not sustainable in the eyes of the law and are
accordingly set aside.
16. In view of the above, all writ petitions are allowed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Rekha
[ad_1]
Source link