HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No.5205 of 2005 Petitioners 1. 2. President, Parent Teacher Association BSP Higher Secondary School No.'t, Sec-6, Bhilai. Secretary-cum-Principal, Parent Teachers Association, BSP Higher Swondary School No.1, Sec-6, Bhifai Vereus Respondente 1. Stete of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary.l.abourCtepartment.Govt.df Chhaffisgarh, Raipur. Presjdingofficer.LabourCourt.Durg Nona Bai, W/o Buclhram, R/o Samlay Nagar, Kumharpara, Supela, Bhlfai, Distt.-Dur9(C.G.) 2. 3. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226S27 OF THECOMSTrrunONOF JNDIA SB: Hon'bte Mr. Justice Satish K.Agnihofri Shri N. K. Vyss, Advocate forthe pefitioners. Shri AsayDvmedi. DeputyGovt. Advocatsfor the respondsntNo.1. ShriH.B.Agarwal,SeniorAdvocatewithShriPankajAgarwal,Advocatef6r the respondentNo. 3. ORDER (Passed on this 2fft) day of June. 20)8) 1. The petitioner has impugned theorder dated 27.1^005 (Anriexure P/1), passed bythe LabourCourt, Durg inCase No. 7/I.D.Act/2002/Refrence. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for Uie petih'oner submits that flie respondent No.3 wasworidng on daily vrages basis as Sweeper. He had been woridng for one or two hours evsrydayandwas paid accordingty. The respondent No.3 was employed a^ and When'workwas avaitable forhim.He had notworfsed for240days in the preeeding yearoreariier; 3; Leamed counsel appearing for <he respondent No.3 submits fliat i{ is frue that it is not recorded in the order passed by the Labour Court ttat ^7A8 J'%.: ,-^ ' •2. - ' . : ' • ^ . the Tespondenyempl<^ee had WQrked for 240 days and this is the precondition for grant of benefit under Section25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, it has been pleaded andthe evidence to tftat effecthas beenproduced. 4. it is we!l e^ablished principteof law that itis for tte workman to prove that he has vrorked for 240 days in the preceding year. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions have held that the conditions precedent to grarit benefit under Section 25-F is working of 240 days jn the preceding year. 5. lnviewofth8above,withoytexpressinganyoptnionontt)emeritsofthe case, the impugned order dated 27.1.2005 (Annexure P/1) isquashed. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court, Durg to consider the case of the respondenVemplQyee afresh and record findings asto whether theconcemsd employee has worked for240 days or not and " paissappropriate orderafresh.inaccordancewithtaw. 6» The respondent/employee Woukf b6atlibertyto make ain applicafon for ^ eoRUnusition of his service before theauthority belowandthe sameshail &Bconsidered anddecided in accordancewith law, having regard to ttie facts situationofthe csse. 7. In view ofthe foregoing, this petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Thakur !il )' l "! '!'