HIGH COURT OF CgHATTISGARH AT EILASPUR Wf. No. 5008 of 2005 PetitiGners 1. President, Parent Teacher Assaciation ESP Primary Schooi, Sec'2, Bhiiai. 2. Secretaw—cum-Principal, Parent Teachers Association, High SchooL sec-2, Bhilai Respondents 1. State of Chhattisuarh Thrcuch Secretary, Labour Department, Govtfof Chhattisgarh. Raipur. Presiding offrcar, Labour Court, Durg Budh Ram, S/o Late shri Chotu Ram, RIG Kuhmar Para. Supela, Bhilai, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) Versus M k) WRIT PETITION UNDER ABTIQI£ zgSI227 CF THE C§NSTITUTICN OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sarish K. Agnihotri' Shri N. K. Vyas, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri H. B. AgarwaL Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agarwai, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. ORDER (Passed on this 25m day of June, 2008) 1. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 20.1.2005 (Annexure PM), passed by the Labour Court, Durg in Case No. 2/i.D.Actl2001lRefrence. . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.3 was working on daily wages basis as Sweeper. He had been working for one or two hours every day and was paid aocordingiy. The respondent No.3 was employed as and when work was available for him. He had not worked for 240 days in the preceding year or eartier. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submits that it is true that it is not recorded in the order passed by the Labour Court that the respondent’employee had worked for 240 days and this is the \ I / . z‘egz(Aag : @ _?,/ , recondition for giant of benefit under Section 25-F of :he lndustrial Disputes Act, 194? . However. it has been pieaded and the evidence to that effect hae been praeuced. §i It is we” estabEshed principm of iaw that £t £3 fer the werkman to preve the: he has worked fot 240 days in the precedmg year, The ‘Hon‘ble Supreme Ccur: in a catena cf eecisions have hem that the conditions precedent to grant benefit under $ectten 25-F is werking of 240 eays in ‘ the preceding year. tn View ef the above, witheut expressing any opinion on the merim of the case, the impugned order dated 20.1 .2005 (Annexure PM) i3 quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court. Durg to consider the case of the respondentrempioyee afresh and record findings asto whether the concerned employee has worked for 240 days or not and pass appropriate order afresh, in accordance with law. The respondent’empioyee would be at liberty to make an application for continuation of his service before the authority below and the same shail be considered and decided in accordance with taw, having regard to the facts situation of the case. in View of the foregoing, this petition is attowed‘. No order as to costs: Thekur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihatri Judge