^i^ H{©HCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPUR W.P.No.51©9of2005 Petitioners 1. 2. President, Parent Teacher Association Adarsh Primar/ School, Sector-7, Bhijaj. Secretary-cum-Principal, Parent Teachers Association, Senior Secondary School No.2, Sector-6, Bhjlai Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Socretary, Labour Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh. Raipur. PfQsiding officer, Labour Court, Durg P. Chintemj, W/o Akai^, R/o Block No.3 F, Street No. 59 Sector-6. Bhilai, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) 2. 3. WRIT PETIT80N UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTiTUTJON OF SNDiA SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Shri N. K. Vyas, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Ajay Dwjvedi, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri H. B. /^arwaS, Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. ORDER (Passed on this 26th day of June. 2008) 1. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 29.1 .2005 (Annexure P/1), passed by the Labour Court, Durg in Case No. 5/I.D.Act/2001/Refrence. 2. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.3 was v/orking on dajfy wages basis as Sweeper. He had been working for one or two hours ever/ day and waspaid accordingly. The respondent No.3 was employed as and when work was availabte for him. He had not v/orked for 240 days in the preceding year or eariier. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submits that it is true that it ss not recorded jn the order passed by the Labour Court that — -7- — the respondenfc/emp{oyee had v/orked for 240 days and this is the precondition for grant of benefit under Section 25-F of the IndustriaS Djsputes Act, 1947 . However, jt has been pleaded and the evidence to that effect has been produced. 4. It is wel! established principle of law that it is for the workman to prove that h©has worked for 240 days in the preceding year. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions have held that the conditions precedent to grant benefst under Section 25-F jsworking of 240 days in the preceding year. 5. In vjew of the above. v/ithout expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 28.1.2005 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court, Durg to consider the case of the respondent/employee afresh and record findings asto whether the concernec} employee has worked for 240 days or not and pass appropriate order afresh, in accordance with law. 6. The respondenVemployee would be at ISberty to make an application for continuation of his service before the authority below andthe same shall be considerecS and decicied in accordance with lav/, having regard to the facts situatjon ofthe case. 7. In view of the foregoing, this pefrition is allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur