Dismissed¶32

Kamlesh Kumar v. Municipal Corporation

Chhattisgarh HC13 Jul 2026WPL/210/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; WPL No. 210 of 2018; Kamlesh Kumar v. Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon; daily-rated/daily wages; Computer Operator; 240 days in a calendar year; burden of proof on workman; Section 10 and Section 25-F, Industrial Disputes Act; retrenchment allowance/compensation; notice or one month's salary in lieu of notice; reinstatement with full back wages; need-basis engagement; no sanctioned and vacant post; Assistant Labour Commissioner; Government reference; Labour Court Rajnandgaon award dated 17.1.2018, Case No. 61/I.D.Act/2014/Ref; State of M.P. v. Arjunlal Razak (2006) 2 SCC 711; Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.; petition dismissed, no costs; decision date 14.7.2026.

What did the court decide?

None; petition dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶32

Kamlesh Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner established that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year during his engagement as a daily-wage Computer Operator. +2 more

¶28

Court's answer

The petitioner failed to produce documentary evidence establishing that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year; the documents submitted showed work for less than 240 days in a calendar year, indicating that his engagement was purely on a need basis.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Because the petitioner was not appointed against a sanctioned and vacant post and failed to prove 240 days' work in a calendar year, the respondent was under no obligation to comply with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

¶30

Key takeaways

The burden of proving his case lies on the petitioner/workman, who cannot take shelter of the respondent/defendant notwithstanding the respondent's failure to lead evidence.ratio¶27
Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Arjunlal Razak, (2006) 2 SCC 711, no case was made out for interference with the Labour Court award and the petition was dismissed.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WPL No. 210 of 2018) by a daily-wage Computer Operator engaged by Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon from 2005 until discontinuation of services in 2010, challenging the Labour Court award dated 17.1.2018 (Case No. 61/I.D.Act/2014/Ref) dismissing his claim for reinstatement with full back wages on the ground that his termination contravened Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Held: the burden of proving 240 days' work in a calendar year lies on the workman, who cannot take shelter of the employer's failure to lead evidence; the petitioner produced no documentary evidence of 240 days' work, and the documents submitted showed work for less than 240 days in a calendar year, the engagement being purely on a need basis; as the petitioner was not appointed against a sanctioned and vacant post, there was no obligation on the employer to comply with Section 25-F. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Arjunlal Razak, (2006) 2 SCC 711, the Court found no case for interference and dismissed the petition with no costs. - Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey.

¶1

¶2

CGHC010291012018 2026:CGHC:29588

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPL No. 210 of 2018

¶6

Kamlesh Kumar S/o Girdhar Aged About 39 Years R/o- Baldev Bag, Baila Pasra Road, Near Panchsiv Mandir, Ward No. 14, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon, Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Respondent(s)

¶11

For Petitioner	: Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate
For Respondent	: Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

14.7.2026

¶15

1. The petitioner has challenged the award passed by the learned Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, Rajnandgaon (C.G) in Case No. 61/I.D.Act/2014/Ref dated 17.1.2018, whereby the statement of claim filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

¶16

2. The facts of the present case are that an application was made by the petitioner before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and

¶17

¶18

thereafter, the appropriate Government referred the matter under the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The sum and substance of the statement of claim filed by the petitioner is that he was engaged by the respondent as Computer Operator on daily wages in the year 2005. He also pleaded that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year but without assigning sufficient reason and without payment of retrenchment allowance, his services were discontinued. It was further pleaded that the respondent failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner sought reinstatement along with full back wages.

¶19

3. The respondent/employer filed a reply, taking a specific stand that the petitioner was engaged on a need basis. It is further pleaded that since there was no requirement for his services, the petitioner’s engagement was discontinued and hence there was no obligation to comply with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner led evidence and submitted documents to establish that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year. However, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish this fact. Consequently, the statement of the claim filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

¶20

4. Mr. Somkant Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the workman submitted relevant documents before the learned Labour Court to demonstrate that he worked

¶21

¶22

for 240 days in a calendar year, but his services were terminated in contravention of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He would further submit that no opportunity of hearing was afforded by the respondent and no inquiry was conducted. It is also argued that no retrenchment compensation was paid nor was any notice or one month’s salary in lieu of notice provided under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act given to him. He would contend that the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate the documents and evidence adduced by the petitioner. It is also argued that the respondent filed a reply but it failed to lead any evidence, which is fatal to the employer’s case.

¶23

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner failed to prove the fact that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year. He would further submit that the learned Labour Court examined the documents and rightly concluded that the petitioner could not prove the claim. According to the documents submitted by the petitioner himself, most of the employees worked only for 25-26 days in a calendar year, and their engagement was purely on a need basis. He would further contend that the petitioner was not appointed against any vacant and sanctioned post, therefore, there was no need to issue any specific order for discontinuation of services. He would also contend that the learned Labour Court relying on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of M.P. and Others vs. Arjunlal Razak reported in (2006) 2 SCC 711

¶24

¶25

dismissed the statement of claim presented by the petitioner, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the onus to prove the fact that a workman has worked for 240 days in a calendar year lies upon the workman himself. He would state that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶26

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶27

7. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged as a daily-rated employee under the respondent from the year 2005 to 2010. In the year 2010, his services were discontinued. Thereafter, an application was moved before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, and the appropriate government referred the matter under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Before the learned Labour Court, the petitioner filed a statement of claim along with documents and adduced oral evidence. The respondent filed a reply but failed to lead any evidence. It is a well-settled principle of law that the burden lies upon the petitioner/plaintiff to prove his case and he cannot take the shelter of the respondent/defendant.

¶28

8. In the present case, the petitioner failed to produce documentary evidence to establish the fact that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year. The document submitted by the petitioner and scrutinized by the learned Labour Court would show that the petitioner worked for less than 240 days in a calendar year. It appears that his engagement was purely on a need basis.

¶29

¶30

9. Since the petitioner was not appointed against a sanctioned and vacant post and failed to produce any document to prove that he worked for 240 days in a calendar year, there was no obligation upon the respondent to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

¶31

10. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arjunlal Razak (supra) , in my considered opinion, no case is made out for interference.

¶32

11. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed . No costs.

¶33

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶34

A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.07.15 11:21:03 +0530

Kamlesh Kumar v. Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Kumar v. Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamlesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhojendra Kumar Awasthi Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Ltd.

Kamal Sutradhar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Balanna Vs the Chief Executive Officer

N. Chinnaiyya Vs the Chief Executive Officer

M/S Ishaan Steels and Minerals (a Proprietorship Firm With GSTIN-22BNEPG8748M2ZM) Vs State of Chhattisgarh