HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. No. 5007 of 2005 Petitionem ' 1. President, Parent Teacher Association Schooi Primary School No.4, Camp‘i, Bhilai.‘ 2. 5ecremty-cum-Principai, Parent ‘Teachera Assaciation, P:imary Schaok NeA. Camp-1, Bhilai Respondent Versus . e 1. $tate of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Labour Department. Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur. Presiding offrcer, Labeur Court. Durg 3. Kartik Ram, S/o Ganpat Lai, R/o Near Sinha Cycle Camp-1, Nehru Chawk, Bhilai. Distt.- Durg (C.G.) WRrT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2251227 OF THE €§N§TiTUTiGN OF lNDiA SB: Hon‘ble Mr. Justrce Satish K. Agnihetri Shri N. K. Vyas, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri H. B. Agamat, Senror Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. C R D E R (Passed on this 26‘" day of June, 2008) er- . The petitioner has impugned the order dated 20.1 .2005 (Annexure P/1), passed by the Labour Court, Durg in Case No, 1li.D.ActlZOO1/R‘efrence. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the ha 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 24 days in the preceding year or earlier. 3. 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 i —\ / _ 71/ me respandent/employee had worked far 240 days and this is the preccndman for grant of benem under Section 25-F of the Indusstrial Disputes Act, 1947 . Hcwever, it has been pleaded and the evidence te ihat efect has been produced. . it s well established prciple f law hai is for the crkman to pre that h has womecl fo 240 days i e eeing ear. The on'e Supreme Court in catena f decisions have held that th cditions . i in o ttt w ov e r n th prcd y Hbl a o e on preceent to grant benefit undr Sectio 25-F is king o 2 days in the precedin year. in view of the above, without xesing any opinion on the merits of the ase. the impugn order dated 20.1 .2005 (Annexure Pl‘l) quashed c ed is . The matter is remanded bc to he bor ourt, Durg o consider the case of the respondent/emoyee afs and ecord iinngs sto hether e oncerned emploee has wked for 240 days o not and pass approriate rder afresh. in accordnce with iaw. p o a The respondenempioyee wo be iirty to mak a application fo continuation of is svic befe the athorit elo and he me, saii be considre dded n accordae th w, hag d t he acts situati of-the cas. . in view of h foregoi. this petition is aliowed. o orer s to cost. te ng N d a s Sd/— _ Satish K. Agnihotn ‘ Judge f d e n wor f 40 g . eprs ak t Lau C t pl reh r di a w th c y or r . tf uld at be e n r h ere or uy bw t sa h ed and eci i nc wi ia vin regar o t f on e