PETITIONER Mpb‘ami: (Fwyf PawH) RESPONDENTS _ Nm‘ W’Ph‘mwB CSacomq’ gar H) G9 WRIT PETITION / Santosh Das Magre, S/o Mahettar Das R/o village Saihewara, Tahsii — Chhuikhadan, Distr Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS IN THE HIGH OURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR No. 225% OF 2011 ict - / 1. Stéte of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantrala (C.G.) Through : The Secretary, Forest Department, ya, Raipur Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division — Khairagarh, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Labour Court (under I.D. Act), Rajnandgaon (C.G.) RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226(227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OPINDIA District - W c2 ”xGr‘! COURT OF CHHATTISGARH i 3%LA$?UR \NRIT §3ETiTiON {L3 NO. 2268 OF 23?? PETiTiONER Sammh Des Magre Versus Séa‘ig of Chhaitti$garh 8; Others. {Wrii Pewjen under Articie 226/22? of the Constiwtion of indie} Singie Bench : Hen’b!e Shri Satish K. Agni‘noiri, J. Present :— Shri Somkant Verma! Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushii Dubeyi Govt. Advocate for the State. RESPONDENT?» ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 29m day of Aprii, 201 1) 1.. Chalienge in this petihon is to éhe chief daied 27.{35.2008 (Annexufe P4) passed by the Labour £30m under the pmvisions of mdusirial Disguise Act 1947. {for short “the LDACA) in Case Ne.18i§.D.f2§306(Ref.). 2. The facts in nutsheii, as proiecied by the petiiiener, are iha‘: the petitioner was appoin‘ied on daiiy-vvages basis and he has been werking continuously from 31.61.1Q96 io 16.02.209Q. Thus. the finding of the Labour Court that the petittoner has not worked for 240 days in one year, particutarty, in the preceding year is not correct. Further, the respondent .sr empioyer has not granted compensation as required under the orovisions of 25F of the 1D. Act. On oerusat of- the documents, it anpeers that the eetitioner was not in continuous service, as pteaded by the petitioner that he was working from €3.91 .‘i998 titt 22.02.1996 at Gendat Forest Range, from 23.Q2.19Q6 to 3M2.19Q8 at Godown and from 01.01.19Q9 to 16.02.2903 in the range of Sathewara (JJ Forest/ Range. The oettttoner has not produced any i 5§$>5 ‘i I ‘ r *’*r ‘ (0‘ M dccu‘mems or exammed any wiiness in supper? of his case mat he had vvarkéd continueus!y for a period of 24D days in §he preceding year in the tee’ih of dear stand of the respendem/empiayer that his service was engaged cnly as and when it wa$ required not on reguiar basis. Admmediy, the peiiiioner wee a daiiy wager. m View of faregomg, no infirmity irregufarity or megai’ity have been noticed in the impugned order to come ta a different comiusionj as feund by the Court below that the petitioner had riot worked fer 24D days. in that errehi', the peririoner is noi eniiiied i0 ahy‘ retrehchmeet compensation under the erovisions or” 25F of the LBAot. For the reasons mentiened hereina’bove‘ the writ petition is , sd/_ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge dismissed.