##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:14743 NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPL No. 20 of 2024

1 - Gulab Prasad Kosariya @ Gulal Prasad Kosariya S/o Gorelal Kosariya Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Kalaee Post Rasani, Police Station And Tehsil

Arang, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner

versus

1 - Director, Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development Agency (Creda) Head Office Village Fundher, Vip Road, In Front Of Urja Park,

District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Shahid Ahmed Ansari, Advocate

For Respondent : Ms. Akruti Singh, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

30.03.2026

1. Heard.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the award passed

by the learned Labour Court No.1, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Case No.01/I.D.Act/Reference/2014 dated 08.05.2023, whereby, learned Labour Court has rejected the statement of claim and

answered the reference in negative.

3. The facts in brief are that the statement of claim was filed by the

petitioner/workman before the learned Labour Court interalia on the ground that he was engaged under the respondent in the year

-2-

2009 as daily rated employee and he was getting salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. It is further stated that he worked there for a period of four years and without assigning any reason and without affording any opportunity of hearing, his services were discontinued. It is also stated that an experience certificate was issued in his favour and he worked under the respondent for 240 days in a calender year. The workman pleaded that his services were discontinued contrary to the provisions of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’).

4. The respondent filed reply and denied the contents. A specific plea

was taken that the petitioner was engaged by placement agency

and he was never engaged as daily rated employee.

5. Learned Labour Court framed issues; the parties led evidence and

thereafter, award was passed.

6. Mr. Ansari, Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that

sufficient evidence was produced before the learned Labour Court to demonstrate that the petitioner was engaged as daily rated employee under the respondent. He would further submit that employer failed to rebut evidence led by the petitioner. He would contend that an experience certificate was issued in his favour on 22.11.2011 vide Ex.P/4-C but said document has not been taken into consideration by the learned Labour Court. He would further contend that the award passed by the learned Labour Court

deserves to be set aside.

7. On the other hand, Ms. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the

3

respondent would oppose submissions advanced by Mr. Ansari. She would submit that the petitioner was engaged by placement agency and he was never engaged by the employer. She would further submit that the petitioner failed to establish his engagement as daily-rated employee under the respondent by leading documentary evidence. She would submit that it has not been established by the workman that he worked for 240 days in a calender year rather the respondent adduced sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the workman was engaged through placement agency and therefore, the learned Labour Court rejected the statement of claim and answered the reference in negative. She

would submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the

record.

9. In evidence, the petitioner stated that in the year 2009, he was

engaged as daily-rated employee under the respondent and by oral order, his services were discontinued. This witness further stated that in the month of January, 2012, he was engaged in the office of Junior Administration Officer, Creda and he worked for 240 days in a calender year. In cross-examination, this witness admitted the fact that he never submitted an application for employment. He also admitted that no order of appointment was issued in his favou