HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGAKH AT BILASPlBt PETmONER RE8PONDENTS WRIT PETmONNo. 3976 ot'1998 Nagar Panchayat, Ratanpur, Through : Chief Mmiicipal Offica-, Nagar fancfaayat Ra|aapur, Tah. Kota- Distt. Bilaspur (MP) (Assets and Uabflities of Special Area DeveloiMneat Authonty:; ^taiqan- stands transfenred to Nagar Panchay^ Ratanpina by ibrceoflaw). ' VERSU8 : 1. Ghanshyam R-asad S/o Bharatlal Yadav, Resident c ofKatatqntr,B}iedimura;'T^;^K<^IM^|yK^^ (M.P.) • • • . - 2. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bilaspur, Tah,, &DisttBilaspur(MP) " PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE COMSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hmi'Ue Shri Satish K. Aenihotri. J; Present: Slri Man<g Paranjpe, Advoeate for Ae petitioner. None fbrtherespondents. ORALOiRDER (Passedon25"dayofJuty,2008) , 1. Despite serviee ofnotice, and afler entering appearance, the r^pondent No. 1 haschosea not to appear^enthemalteislakenypforto finallv. ~ -' , 2. The petiti<Mier impugns the award dated 30.W.199S (Annexure P/5) passed by Ihe Labour Court in case No. 2/IDA/96/refereaace on the. ground that it is well establisKed (mnciple of law that ia order to svsdl benefit ofsection 25-F ofthe Industoial Disputes Act, 1947 (fffl- slKBt 'the Act, 1947'), the employee has to p-ove that he has work^ for 240 days. 3. On pemsal of the award, it is clear that tfae learaed Labwu JuSge, wilfaout recordmg findiag on the basis rfevidence produeed"wMrregard to working of 240 days in tfie pi-eeeding year, has qiiashed fte wdw o^ -2- removal ofrespondenit No. I, holding that the provisions ofsection 25-F ofthe Act, 1947 has aot been complied with. It is well-established principle oflaw that it is forthe workman to psove that he has worked for 240 days in the preeediag year. Tbe Bon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions have beea pleased to hold that flie conditions precedent to g-ant baieft under section 25-F ts woridng Qf240daysmtheprecedingyear. * ! In view ofthe above, without expressing any o{rinion on merits ofthe case, the impugned order dated 30.05.1998 (Annexwe P/5) is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court, Klaq>urto eonsider the case of tfae respon<fcnt/employee alresh and recard findtngs asto whether the respondent/employee has worked fibr 240 days or not aad pass appropriate order afresh, in acoordance with law. In view oflhe foregoinfe the petiton stands &sposed of. No ordw asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge