HléH CGURT OF CHHAITI$GARH AT BILASPUR WP. No. 5355 of 2005 Petitioners 1. President. Parent Teacher Association Primary Schoo! Nari Camp-2, Bh‘riai. 2. Secretary-cum—Princrpar, Parent Teachers Association, Primary Schooi No.1 Camp-2. Bhilai Versus Respondent; 1. Sate of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Labour Department, Gavt. of Chhartisgarh, Raipur. 2. Presiding officer, Labour Court. Burg 3. B Peiamma W/o B Ramaliu Rm Bicck No 1 C/1 F Labour Camb Bhrlal , D53 Burg (C G) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2261227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Shri N. K. Vyas, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri H. B. Agarwai, Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agarwai. Advocate for the resoondent No. 3. 0 R D E R ( Passed on this 26‘" day of June 2008) 1. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 28.1 .2005 (Annexure Pit), passed by the Labour Court, Durg in Case No. 8II.D.Actl2001lRefrence. Learned counsel. appearing for the petitioner submits that the hd respondent No.3 was working on daily wages basis as $weeper. He had been working for one or two hours every day and was paid accordingly. 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 earlier. 3. Learned counsei appearing for the respondent No.3 submits that it is rue 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 \ ’ ) ,,(M\ \ /‘ u wz/ preccndition for giant of benefit unde.’ Sectian 25-F cf the Industria! Disputes Act, 1947 . Howevef, ithas been pleaded and the evidence tc that effect has been produced. ‘ . it is we}! established principie of Raw that it is for the workman to prove that he has worked for 240 days in the preceding year. The Hon’bie‘ Supreme Court in a catena of decisions have held that the conditions precedent to grant benefit under Section 25~F is working of 240 days in the preceding year. . in View of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 28.1.2005 (Annexure P/t) 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 concerned emptoyee has worked for 240 days or not and pass appropriate order afresh, in accordance with law. The respondent'employeewoutd be at liberty to make an application for . continuation of his service before the authority below and the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, having regard-to the facts situation of the case. . in view of the foregoing, this petition is ailowed. No order as to costs. ‘L ' .. sdi- " Satish‘ K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur .