.sf~v, l..!-_-iU.*<!i;»SSB8i HIGH COURT OF CUHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS /^, &<') WR1T PETmON No. 3975 of 1998 Nagar Panchayat, Ratanpur, Through : Chief Mwiicipal OfBcer, Naga" Paiieliayat 8ataii{»r,Tah. Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (MP) (Assets and Liabilities of Special Area Developmeiit Aulfaority Ratanpur stands transferred to Naear Panchayat Batanour bv force ofSaw). VERSUS 1. Hira Sindi S/o Birbal' Sindi Kshatriya, R/o Bhedimura, Satanpur, BiSaspur (KIP) Seeond Address: Gram .: Jhanjhi, Post : Pandhi, Jayramnagar, Bilaspur(MP) 2. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bilaspur, Tah. &Distt.Bilaspur(MP) PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITLniON OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Sattsh K. Aemhotri, J. Present: Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ... *,-^<ii^E^^^ ^i"^••iLl&^tt^^'^^^ ^^np'-:"" !y\ ORALORUER (Passed on 25th day of July, 2008) Despite service ofnotice, and after eatering appearance, the respondent No. 1 has chosen net to appear when the matter is taken up for bearmg fmallv. The petitioner impugns the award dated 30.05.1998 (Annexure P/5) passed by fhe Labour Court in case No. 18/IDA/96/reference on the ground that it is well established principle of law that in order to avail benefit of seetion 25-F ofthe Industrial Disputes Aet, 1947 (for short 't&e Act, 1947'), the employee has to prove 1hat he has worked for 240 davs. On pemsal of the award, it is clear that the leamed Labour Judge, without recording finding on the basis of evidence produced with regard to working of 240 days in the preceding year, has quashed the order of ,.'^t?a*?-'s, :^" ,**':.^£~-<-* ,f- ...^- ,rs -,i.,..'l....rfi glg:""'"" •••••••--—-^; -2- removal ofrespwident No.l, holding that the provisious ofsection 25-F ofthe Act, 1947 has not been eomplied with. 4. It is well established prineiple oflaw (hat ft is for the wortanan to prove that he has worked for 240 days in the preceding year. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions have been pleased to hold that the conditions precedent to grant benefit under section 25-F is working of240 days in the preceding year. 5. hi view offhe above, without expressing any opinioH on merits ofthe ease. the impugned order dated 30.05.1998 CAnnexure P/5) is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Coiat, Bilaspur to consider the ease of the respondent/employee afresh and record findings asto whether the respondenfemployee has worked tor 240 days or not and pass appropriate order afresh, in accordance with law. 6. In view of the foregoing, the petiton stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ,*s ism: