HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. No. 5356 of 2005 WRIT PETWION UNDER ARTICLE 225i227 éF ?HE cGNS‘fWUTlON éF iNmA SB: Hon’hle Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Shrr N. K. Vyas; Advocate for me petitieners. Shri Ajay Dwivedi. Deputy Govt Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri H. B. Agarwal, $enior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. ORQER ( Passed on this 25‘“ day of June, 2008) 1, The petitioner has impugned the order dated 22.1.2005 (Annexure Pl1), ' passed by the Labour Court, Burg in Case No. 4/t.D.ActlRefrence12001. 2. 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 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 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 \\ \\ \_\ l l Petitioners 1. 1 President, Parent Teacher Associatéon Schw} Senior Secondary Schooi No. 2 Se tor—6. Bhilai. 2. Secretary-cum-Principai, Patent Teachers Association, Senior Secondary School No.2. Sector-6. Bhilai Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Labour Department. Govt. of Chhattisgarh. Raipur. 2. Presidiné officer. Labour Court.Durg 3. Kavita Chourey, Wii Rahui Chourey, R/o Buddha Vihar, Sector-6, Bhilai, Distt.— Burg (C.G.) Thakur the respsndenVemployee had worked for 240 days and this is the precondition for grant of benefit undef Section 25-F of the tndusttial Disputes Act. 1947 . However, it has been pleaded and the evidence to that effect has been pteduced. 4. it is welt established principle ct law that it is for the workman to prove that he has worked for 240 days in the pteceding year. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a oatena of decisions have held that the conditions precedent to grant beneht under Section 25-F is working of 240 days in the preceding year. 5. ln View of the above. without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case: the impugned order dated 22.1 .2005 (Annexure PH) 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 empioyee has worked for 240 days or not and pass appropriate order afresh, in accordance with law. o. The respondent/empioyee would 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. 7. In view of the foregoing, this petition is allowed. No order as to costs. l ‘ Sd/- satish K. Agnihotri Judge