Chattisgarh High Court
Bhagwat Rathore vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 July, 2026
CGHC010002722019 2026:CGHC:28102
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPL No. 8 of 2019
1 - Bodhram Rathore S/o Shri Maheshram Rathor Aged About 51 Years
Carpenter R/o Village - Seoni, Thana - Champa, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water
Resources, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Executive Engineer Hadeo Nahar Water Management, Janjgir, District
Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
WPL No. 10 of 2019
1 – Chaitram Sahu S/o Shri Vedram Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Village
Mudpar, Thana- Navagarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District :
Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water
Resources, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh2 – Executive Engineer Hadeo Nahar Water Management, Janjgir, District
Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
— Respondent(s)
WPL No. 3 of 2020
1 – Phulesh Ram Kashyap S/o Chhotu Ram Kashyap Aged About 48 Years R/o
Village – Mudpar, Post – Khisora, Tahsil Pamgarh, District – Janjgir – Champa
Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
—Petitioner
Versus
-2-1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water
Resources, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh2 – Executive Engineer, Hasdeo Nahar Water Management, Janjgir, District –
Janjgir – Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
— Respondent(s)
WPL No. 11 of 2019
1 – Bhagwat Rathore S/o Shri Kanhai Rathore Aged About 51 Years R/o Village
Seoni, Thana Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-
Champa, Chhattisgarh
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water
Resources, Mantralaya, Mahanandi Bhawan, Atal Nagar District Raipur
Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 – Executive Engineer Hasdeo Nahar Water Management, Janjgir
District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa,
Chhattisgarh —- Respondents
For respective Petitioners : Mr. KPS Gandhi, Advocate and
Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate
For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. A.G.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
08.07.2026
1. Heard.
2. In these batch of writ petitions filed under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioners/workmen have challenged the
award passed by the learned Labour Court, Janjgir-Champa
(C.G.), in Case No. 14/I.D. Act/Reference/2013, Case No. 16/I.D.
Act/Reference/2013, Case No. 34/I.D. Act/Reference/2013 and
Case No. 39/I.D. Act/Reference/2012, dated 14.09.2018,
respectively, whereby the statement of claim filed by the petitioners
have been dismissed.
3. The facts, in brief, according to the statement of claim, are that the
petitioners were engaged by the respondent department between
1980 to 1984; their services were discontinued by the department.
Thereafter, they moved an application before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) and in turn, appropriate
Government referred the matter to the concerned Labour Court for
adjudication as to whether the termination of services of the
petitioners is valid and proper. In the first round of litigation, the
learned Labour Court answered the question in favour of the
workmen and held that they were entitled to reinstatement without
back wages. Those awards were challenged by filing writ petitions,
bearing WPL No. 150/2014, WPL No. 153 of 2014, WPL No. 155
of 2014 and WPL No. 253 of 2014, preferred by the
employer/State Government. Above-referred writ petitions were
allowed, and cases were remitted back to the concerned Labour
Court to consider the cases afresh by recording specific findings
with regard to (i) continuous work for a period of 240 days in a
calendar year preceding the date of termination, and (ii) the
principle of ‘last come, first go’.
4. The petitioners herein, in their statement of claim, pleaded that
they had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year
preceding the date of termination of their services, and that the
said decision of termination of services of the respondent/employer
was contrary to the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’).”
5. The Learned Labour Court recorded a specific finding that the
-4-
workmen failed to establish the fact that they had worked for 240
days in a calendar year preceding the date of termination of their
service, and that they also failed to prove that the employees
appointed after the petitioners/workmen were working with the
department. Therefore, it is held that the principle of ‘last come,
first go’ has not been proved by leading cogent evidence. Learned
Labour Court dismissed the statement of claim filed by the
petitioners.
6. Learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners/workmen would
argue that the petitioners adduced sufficient evidence to establish
the fact that they had worked for 240 days in a calendar year
preceding the date of termination of their services. It is also
contended that the Learned Labour Court failed to appreciate the
said piece of evidence. They would further contend that the
workmen who were engaged in the department after the
engagement of the petitioners are still working, whereas, the
services of the petitioners were terminated, and thus the
department failed to comply with the provisions of Section 25G of
the Act of 1947. It is also argued that petitioners moved
applications before the learned Labour Court seeking a direction to
the respondent/employer to provide material documents regarding
engagement of the petitioners but no order was passed on those
applications. They would submit that as the applications were
moved by the petitioners, this Court may draw an adverse
inference against the employer. Mr. Gandhi, Advocate, has placed
reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Division
Bench in Writ Appeal No.278 of 2021, parties being Smt. Kunti
Bai Kashyap and the State of Chhattisgarh and others,
decided on 01.02.2023, wherein it is held that where a daily-wage
employee fails to produce evidence to show that he continuously
worked for five years under the employer, such employee would be
entitled to monetary compensation. They would pray that a
direction may be issued to the respondent employer to make
payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement of services, as
most of the petitioners have already attained the age of
superannuation.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General
appearing for the State would oppose the submissions. He would
submit that the petitioners could not lead clinching evidence to
establish the fact that they worked for 240 days in a calendar year
preceding the date of termination of their services. It is further
argued that sufficient documents were not produced before the
Court below in this regard. Mr. Pandey would submit that the
employer examined the Sub-Divisional Officer of the department,
who categorically stated that the petitioners/workmen did not work
for the period pleaded in the statement of claim. This witness
further stated that the workmen never worked continuously for 240
days in a calendar year with the department and that their
engagement was casual in nature. With regard to compensation,
Mr. Pandey would argue that the petitioners/workmen have to
establish the fact that they worked for 240 days in a calendar year
and they are entitled to reinstatement; and in such a situation, a
-6-
direction with regard to payment of monetary compensation can be
considered. He has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Krishna Bhagya Jal
Nigam Ltd. v. Mohd. Rafi, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 697.
8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at
length and perused the records.
9. Perusal of the statements of claim filed by the petitioners show that
the petitioners/workmen specifically pleaded that they worked for
240 days in a calendar year under the respondent department.
10.Perusal of the record would show that the petitioners could not
adduce documentary evidence to establish this fact. The oral
evidence adduced by the petitioners/workmen would not suffice,
and therefore the learned Labour Court recorded a specific finding
that the petitioners failed to prove the fact of their engagement for
more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of
termination of their services.
11.It is a well-settled principle of law that the burden of proof lies on
the workman so as to entitle him to the benefits of Section 25-F of
the Act of 1947. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Mohd. Rafi (supra) held that where a workman fails to discharge
the initial burden, an award of the Labour Court holding the
termination of services as illegal on the ground of non-compliance
with Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 and directing his
reinstatement would be erroneous. Relevant paragraphs 6 to 10
are reproduced herein below :
“6. In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State
of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004 (8) SCC 161), the position
was again reiterated in paragraph 6 as follows:
“6.It was the case of the workman that he
had worked for more than 240 days in the
year concerned. This claim was denied by
the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead
evidence to show that he had in fact worked
up to 240 days in the year preceding his
termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is
only his own statement which is in his favour
and that cannot be regarded as sufficient
evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come
to the conclusion that in fact the claimant
had worked for 240 days in a year. These
aspects were highlighted in Range Forest
Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3) SCC 25).
No proof of receipt of salary or wages for
240 days or order or record in that regard
was produced. Mere non-production of the
muster roll for a particular period was not
sufficient for the Labour Court to hold that
the workman had worked for 240 days as
claimed.”
7.In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas
(2004 (8) SCC 195), it was held that the burden was on
the workman to show that he was working for more than
240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged
retrenchment. In M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004
(8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in
paragraph 11 as follows:
“11.The above burden having not been
discharged and the Labour Court having
held so, in our opinion, the Industrial Court
and the High Court erred in basing an
order of reinstatement solely on an
adverse inference drawn erroneously. At
this stage it may be useful to refer to a
judgment of this Court in the case of
Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri
Niwas JT 2004 (7) SC 248 wherein this
Court disagreed with the High Court’s view
of drawing an adverse inference in regard
to the non-production of certain relevant
documents. This is what this Court had to
say in that regard:
“15. A court of law even in a case where
provisions of the Indian Evidence Act
apply, may presume or may not presume
that if a party despite possession of the
best evidence had not produced the same,
it would have gone against his
contentions. The matter, however, would
be different where despite direction by a
court the evidence is withheld.
Presumption as to adverse inference for
non-production of evidence is always
-8-optional and one of the factors which is
required to be taken into consideration is
the background of facts involved in the lis.
The presumption, thus, is not obligatory
because notwithstanding the intentional
non-production, other circumstances may
exist upon which such intentional non-
production may be found to be justifiable
on some reasonable grounds. In the
instant case, the Industrial Tribunal did not
draw any adverse inference against the
appellant. It was within its jurisdiction to do
so particularly having regard to the nature
of the evidence adduced by the
respondent.”
8. In Manager, Reserve Bank of India,
Bangalore v. S. Mani and Ors. (2005(5)
SCC 100) a three-Judge Bench of this
Court again considered the matter and
held that the initial burden of proof was on
the workman to show that he had
completed 240 days of service. Tribunal’s
view that the burden was on the employer
was held to be erroneous. In Batala
Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Sowaran
Singh (2005 (8) Supreme 481) it was held
as follows:
“13.So far as the question of onus
regarding working for more than 240 days
is concerned, as observed by this Court in
Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani the
onus is on the workman.”
The position was examined in detail in Surendranagar
District Panchayat v. Dehyabhai Amarsingh (2005 (7)
Supreme 307) and the view expressed in Range
Forest Officer, Siri Niwas, M.P. Electricity Board cases
(supra) was reiterated.
9. In R.M. Yellatti v. The Asst. Executive Engineer (JT
2005 (9) SC 340), the decisions referred to above were
noted and it was held as follows:
“17. Analyzing the above decisions of this
court, it is clear that the provisions of the
Evidence Act in terms do not apply to the
proceedings under section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act. However, applying
general principles and on reading the
aforestated judgments, we find that this
court has repeatedly taken the view that the
burden of proof is on the claimant to show
that he had worked for 240 days in a given
year. This burden is discharged only upon
the workman stepping in the witness box.
This burden is discharged upon the
workman adducing cogent evidence, both
oral and documentary. In cases of
termination of services of daily waged
earner, there will be no letter of appointment
or termination. There will also be no receipt
or proof of payment. Thus in most cases, the
workman (claimant) can only call upon the
employer to produce before the court the
nominal muster roll for the given period, the
letter of appointment or termination, if any,
the wage register, the attendance register
etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately
would depend thereafter on facts of each
case. The above decisions however make it
clear that mere affidavits or self-serving
statements made by the claimant/workman
will not suffice in the matter of discharge of
the burden placed by law on the workman to
prove that he had worked for 240 days in a
given year. The above judgments further lay
down that mere non-production of muster
rolls per se without any plea of suppression
by the claimant workman will not be the
ground for the tribunal to draw an adverse
inference against the management. Lastly,
the above judgments lay down the basic
principle, namely, that the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution will not
interfere with the concurrent findings of fact
recorded by the labour court unless they are
perverse. This exercise will depend upon
facts of each case.”
10.The above position was again re-iterated in ONGC Ltd.
and Anr. v. Shyamal Chandra Bhowmik (2006 (1) SCC
337) and Chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam and Anr. v.
Sham Lal (2006 AIR SCW 3574).”
12. After going through the pleadings made by the petitioners in the
statement of claim, the evidence adduced by them and the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Rafi
(supra), in my opinion, the learned Labour Court rightly held that
the petitioners/workmen failed to establish the fact that they worked
for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of
termination of their services.
13.With regard to the application of Section 25-G of the Act of 1947, it
is necessary on the part of the workmen to plead and prove that
the employees were workmen, who belong to a particular category
of workmen in that establishment. In the absence of any
agreement, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman
-10-
who was the last person to be employed in that category.
14.In the present case, the workmen failed to plead and prove the fact
that the workmen who were employed after the petitioners are still
working with the establishment. In absence of such evidence, in
opinion of this Court, provisions of Section 25-G of the Act of 1947
would not attract and the learned Labour Court rightly denied relief
under said provision.
15.One more submission was made by the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners that an adverse inference should be drawn
against the establishment/employer because documents were not
provided before the learned Labour Court despite applications
having been filed.
16. It is a well-settled principle of law that the workmen must establish
the primary foundation of their case, and if the establishment or
employer thereafter fails to rebut that foundation and further fails to
produce necessary documents, an adverse inference may be
drawn against the establishment or employer.
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of State of
Uttarakhand and Others v. Sureshwati, reported in (2021) 3 SCC
108, held that the burden to prove that the workman had worked for
240 days lies on the workman himself. The question whether an
adverse inference could be drawn against the employer, in case he
did not produce the best evidence available with it, arises
thereafter. If some of the documents have not been produced by
the establishment, an adverse inference could not be drawn.
Relevant para 26 is reproduced herein below :
“26. A Division Bench of this Court in Bhavnagar Municipal
Corpn. v. Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha, 2014(16) SCC 130
held that :
“7. It is fairly well-settled that for an order of termination of the
services of a workman to be held illegal on account of non-
payment of retrenchment compensation, it is essential for the
workman to establish that he was in continuous service of the
employer within the meaning of Section 25-B of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. For the respondent to succeed in that
attempt he was required to show that he was in service for
240 days in terms of Section 25-B(2)(a)(ii). The burden to
prove that he was in actual and continuous service of the
employer for the said period lay squarely on the workman.
The decisions of this Court in Range Forest Officer v. S.T.
Hadimani,(2002) 3 SCC 25, Municipal Corpn., Faridabad v.
Siri Niwas, 2004(8) 195,, M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram,
(2004) 8 SCC 246. Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd.
v. State of Rajasthan,(2004) 8 SCC00000000000 161,
Surendranagar District Panchayat v. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai,
2005(8) SCC 450 and R.M. Yellatti v. Executive Engineer,
2006(1) SCC 106 unequivocally recognise the principle that
the burden to prove that the workman had worked for 240
days is entirely upon him. So also the question whether an
adverse inference could be drawn against the employer in
case he did not produce the best evidence available with it,
has been the subject-matter of pronouncements of this Court
in Municipal Corpn., Faridabad v. Siri Niwas and M.P.
Electricity Board v. Hariram [M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram,
, reiterated in RBI v. S. Mani18. This Court has held that only
because some documents have not been produced by the
management, an adverse inference cannot be drawn against
it.”
18. With regard to the monetary compensation claimed by the
petitioners herein, as they failed to prove the fact that they had
worked continuously for 240 days in a calendar year preceding
the date of termination of their services, and further failed to
establish that the employees engaged after the appointment of
the petitioners are still working with the establishment, no such
relief can be granted.
19. In the matter of Smt. Kunti Bai Kashyap (supra), she was
offered engagement as a daily-wage earner on a
compassionate basis and had worked for 6½ years.
-12-
Accordingly, the Hon’ble Division Bench in that matter granted
monetary compensation. However, the facts of the present
case are entirely different. In the opinion of this Court,
therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the form
of monetary compensation. Accordingly, these petitions fail and
are hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Rekha
