Allowed¶61

State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. v. Dulichand Lodhi And Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC8 Jul 2025WPL/30/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Industrial Disputes Act 1947; Section 25-B; Section 25-B(2)(b); Section 25-F; continuous service; 240 days in a calendar year; 120 days in six months; retrenchment notice and compensation; seasonal employment; DDT spray work; reinstatement without back wages; pleadings versus findings; Labour Court Rajnandgaon awards set aside; writ petitions allowed; High Court of Chhattisgarh; Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J. Relevant where a labour court's finding of 'continuous service' under s.25-B(2)(b) rests on days-worked findings inconsistent with the workman's own pleaded case.

What did the court decide?

All three writ petitions allowed; the awards of the learned Labour Court, Rajnandgaon dated 29.02.2012 & 23.04.2012 (reinstatement without back-wages) set aside. ¶61

State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. Vs Dulichand Lodhi And Anr. — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

All three writ petitions allowed; the awards of the learned Labour Court, Rajnandgaon dated 29.02.2012 & 23.04.2012 (reinstatement without back-wages) set aside.

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the removal of the workmen was valid and legal, and to what relief they were entitled (terms of the reference made by the State of Chhattisgarh vide letter dated 26.11.2009). +1 more

¶37

Ratio / Principle

The documents and evidence available on the record showed that the workmen could not prove the fact that they worked for 240 days in a calendar year.

¶54

Key takeaways

The workmen's engagement in DDT spray work was seasonal, and the record showed that they worked only 150-155 days in a calendar year, being paid Rs.1500/- per month looking to the nature of their work.ratio¶51
Since the workmen had specifically pleaded in their statement of claim and in affidavits filed under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC that they worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, there was no occasion for the learned Labour Court to record contrary findings with regard to continuous engagement.ratio¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.), order dated 09.07.2025 in WPL Nos. 28, 29 & 30 of 2014: State of Chhattisgarh (Secretary, Health Department; Malaria Officer; CMHO, District Hospital, Rajnandgaon) challenged the awards of the learned Labour Court, Rajnandgaon dated 29.02.2012 (Case Nos. 104 & 177/I.D. Act/Reference/2009) and 23.04.2012 (Case No. 176/I.D. Act/Reference/2009), whereby the Government reference was decided in favour of workmen Raja Ram, Anil Kumar, Loknath and Dulichand Lodhi with reinstatement without back wages. The workmen, engaged for DDT spray work in 1987, 1990 and 1996 at Rs.1500/- per month and discontinued in 2007-08, had specifically pleaded 240 days' work per calendar year in their statement of claim and affidavits under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, but failed to prove it; the record showed seasonal work of only 150-155 days per calendar year. The Labour Court nevertheless applied Section 25-B(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (work of 120 days in six months treated as continuous service) to extend Section 25-F retrenchment protection on facts and provisions not pleaded. Held: with the plea being one of 240 days, there was no occasion for the Labour Court to record contrary findings on continuous engagement, and awards founded on unpleaded facts and provisions of law are unsustainable; the awards dated 29.02.2012 & 23.04.2012 were set aside and all writ petitions allowed.

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPL No. 28 of 2014

¶5

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. Through Secretary, Health Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Ps Mandir Hasaud, Distt Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh

¶6

2 - The Malaria Officer, District Hospital, Rajnandgaon, Distt Rajnandgaon, Cg, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶7

--- Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Raja Ram S/o Mehattar Lodhi R/o Village Tekopur Kala, Tah Khairagarh, Ps Khairagarh, Distt Rajnandgaon, Cg, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Anil Kumar S/o Premlal Verma R/o Village Tekapur Kala, Tah Khairagarh, Ps Khairagarh, Distt Rajnandgaon, Cg, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, Distt Rajnandgaon, Cg, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶12

--- Respondent(s)

¶13

WPL No. 29 of 2014

¶14

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Ps Mandir Hasaud, Raipur, Distt Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh

¶15

2 - The Malaria Officer, District Hospital, Rajnandgaon, Distt Rajnandgaon, Cg

¶16

--- Petitioner(s)

¶17

Versus

¶18

1 – Loknath, S/o Ramratan Lodhi, R/o Budhanbhat, Tah Chhuikhadan, Ps Chhuikhadan, Distt Rajnandgaon, Cg, Chhattisgarh

¶19

2 - Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, Distt Rajnandgaon, Cg, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶20

-2-

¶21

--- Respondent(s)

¶22

WPL No. 30 of 2014

¶23

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Health Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Ps Mandir Hasaud, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh

¶24

2 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer, District Hospital, Rajnandgaon, Distt Rajnandgaon, Cg

¶25

3 - The Malaria Officer, District Hospital, Rajnandgaon, Distt Rajnandgaon, Cg

¶26

--- Petitioner(s)

¶27

Versus

¶28

1 - Dulichand Lodhi S/o Ram Sai Lodhi, R/ Kushiyari,tah Khairagarh, Ps Khairagarh, Distt Rajnandgaon, Cg, Chhattisgarh

¶29

2 - Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, Distt Rajnandgaon, Cg, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents

¶30

For Petitioners/State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional A.G. For Respondents/Workmen: Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate

¶31

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶32

Order on Board

¶33

09.07.2025

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

and the awards of reinstatement in service without backwages have been passed.

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

The petitioners filed their written statement and denied the

¶40

-4-

¶41

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

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.

¶44

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

¶45

¶46

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.

¶47

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 25B(2)(b) of the Act of 1947, a workman who worked for a

¶48

-6-

¶49

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.

¶50

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

¶51

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.

¶52

11.The statement of claim would show that the respondents

¶53

¶54

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.

¶55

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.

¶56

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.

¶57

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

¶58

-8-

¶59

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.

¶60

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.

¶61

In view of the above, all writ petitions are allowed .

¶62

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶63

Rekha

State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. v. Dulichand Lodhi And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. v. Dulichand Lodhi And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Chairman And Managing Director Vs The Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act

Anand Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nitesh More Vs Smt. Chanchal More

Bhawarlal Barle Vs Union of India

Babulal Vs Union of India

Sunil Tawari Vs Janak Ram Kurre