^'V3^wu ^:^^'-"" °1^" ^-'""' ,,es»- ^...-- (_ s IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUIR WRIT PETIION(L) NC^:HS /2011 PETITIONER Ranmat Singh son of shri Sheoram Singh aged about 34 years resident of village Lalpur Post and tahsil Manendragarh District Korea (C.G) VERSUS ^ RESPONDENTS 1 Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation through Regional Manager C.G. Ware Housing Bilaspur (C,G,) 2 Branch Manager Chhatisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation Branch Manendragarh District Korea (C.G) 3 Presiding Officer Labour Court Ambikapur District Sarguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 /227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA » i fe' ^^- •l'i». '<iiS- <.,-„->- s ^aS^! .<~ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (U N0.1705 OF 2011 PETITIONER Ranmat Singh RESPONDENTS Versus Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation & Others (Writ Petition underArticles 227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri J.S. Baraik, counsel for the petitioner. QRDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 30th day of March, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity ofthe award dated 14-10-2010 (Annexure - P/1)passed by the Labour Court, Ambikapur, in case No.22/ID Act/2006 (Ref.) by which the claim ofthe petitioner has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner was appointed as' Watchman (Choukidar) in the month of July, 1993 and since then he is working in the respondent Department regularly without any interruption. However, all of a sudden by an oral order i.e. on 22-7-2002 the petitioner has been removed from the service without following the due process of law. Even before taking the impugned action no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner. 3. Being aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner approached the Labour Court by filing a statement of claim and prayed for his reinstatement with back wages. The respondents submitted their response stating the petitioner was not a regular employee and he was working on the contractual basis. Thereafter, the Labour Court dismissed the claim of the petitioner by the impugned award in an illegal and arbitrary manner. Thus, this petition. 4. On perusal of the impugned award, it appears that the Labour Court observed that the petitioner has failed to prove his case. lilil ^-<%l:';sa... c\ Even the petitioner has failed to establish the fact that he has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Thus, the finding ofthe Labour Court isjust and proper. 5. The Supreme Court, in Sita Ram & Others v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute , observed as under: "14. The question asto whether the burden of proof was on the employer or on the workman is no longer res integra. It would be on the workman to prove that he had worked for two hundred and forty days in a year. However, where both the parties have adduced evidences, in most of the cases, the question would be academic. 15. In ONGC Ltd. v. llias Abdulrehman it was held: "8. A perusal of the evidence adduced by the workman himself shows that he went in search of employment to different places and whenever there was a temporary employment available in different departments of the appellant Corporation, be it field work or the work in the Chemistry Department, he accepted the employment and worked in these departments not in one place but at different places like Baroda and Mehsana. It has come on record that the management did try to accommodate the appellant in a permanent job but could not do so because of lack of qualifications. In such circumstances we think that the Industrial Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the number of days of work put in by the respondent in broken period, cannot be taken as a continuous employment for the purpose of Section 25-F of the Act, as has been held by this Court in Indian Cable Co. Ltd. We are aware that the judgment of this Court in Indian Cable Co. Ltd. was rendered in the context of section 25-G of the Act, still we are of the opinion that the law for the purpose of counting the ' (2008) 5 SCC 75 i'll'n'- Gowri days of work in different departments controlled by an apex Corporafion will be governed by the principles laid down in Indian Cable Co. Ltd. and the Industrial Tribunal was justified in dismissing the reference." (See also Range Forest Officer vs. S.T.Hadimani, R.M. Yellatti vs. Asstt. Executive Engineer, State of Maharashtra vs. Dattatraya Dingamber Briajdar ('SCC para 8 : Scale para 6) and Ganga Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. vs. Jaiveer Singh). 16. Although at ohe point of time, the burden of proof used to be placed on the employer, in view of a catena of recent decisions, it must be held that the burden of proof is on the workman to show that he has completed 240 days in a year." 6. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned award dated 14-10-2010 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Labour Court is unexceptionable warranting no interference. 7. In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. ,]— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge