^\ ^cJSing^ ^snch p IN THE HIGH COURTOF 3UDICATURE AT BILASS^tR fCHHATTISGARH^ 3 W.P.NO. 82_OF2005 PETITIONER ^.. ^w./ ^y S« i\ »*' .<'.^r' Guru Ghasidas University, A University incorporated under Chhattisgarh Vishwa Vidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 having its Office at Koni, Bilapsur, Tahsit & Dist. Bitaspur (Chhattisgarh) through its Registrar, Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur. ^ ^ ^y RESPONDENTS VERSUS / 1. P. Rajak, Adhyaksh, LaUhanda ^ Mazdoor Union, Office-Burgess Schoot Compound, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur [CG] 2. Deputy Labour Commjssioner Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) WRTT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 227 READ WITH ARTtCI-E 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT 1H NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MAN&AMUS PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS. ORDER OR ORDERSs E%a ^v^ HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION N0.82 OF 2005 Guru Ghasidas University ^yersus P. Rajak & Another (Writ Petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent No.1. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 10th day of February, 2011) 1. Despite entering appearance by the respondent No.1 by filing vakalatnama, none appears,nor any response has been filed on behalfofthe respondent No.1. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legatity and validity of the award dated 25-9-2004 (Annexure - P/3) passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur, in case No.32/I.D.A/98 (P. Rajak v. Kulpati, Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya), whereunder the Labour Court, without recording the finding that the employees had worked for a period of 240 days in the preceding year, had come to the conclusion that there was violation of provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the IDA"). 3. The identical issue asto whether an employee is entitled to benefit of Section 25F of the IDA without establishing the fact that the employee had worked for more than 240 days in a preceding year came into consideration before this Court in Divisional Forest Officer v. Chaman'n Bai & another. In the said matter, this Court after relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sita Ram & Others v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute2, observed as under: ^ 1 WP No. 1911 of 1997 (decided 7-12-2009) 2 (2008) 5 SCC 75 r ;.^\'•'v^yr'^~ 1 ^1 ^. •ft:^ ^"T^ Ssi^ Gowri "9. Section 25F of the IDA provides for continuation of service for not less than one year under the employer, which shall entitle workman to the benefits of retrenchment compensation or one month's notice in writing and retrenchment compensation payable before retrenchment. Continuous service for not less than one year under provisions of section 25 read with section 25B of the IDA means 240 days in the preceding year. The Labour Court has not calculated the working of 240 days in the preceding year but the total period from 1976 to 01.06.1991 • and came to the conclusion that the Sukaluram has worked for more than 240 days. This is contrary to the well established principles of law. Thus, holding retrenchment as illegal, being not in accordancewith the provisions of section 25F of the IDA is not proper and deserves to be set aside." In view of foregoing reasons, as the Labour Court has not recorded the finding that the employees had worked for 240 days in the preceding year, the impugned award is not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned award dated 25-9-2004 (Annexure - P/3) is set aside and the petition is allowed. However, it is made clear that if any payment has been made to the employees either under the provisions of Section 17B of the IDA or otherwise, the same shall not be recovered from the employees. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ><s ^