W 1% wghi §LWL x‘é W @ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR’ (C.G.) WP (L)No ELHQ of2011 Panch Ram, Son of Shrl Bhlkham Smgh, aged about 42 years, R/o. Village Barwahi, Post Rampur, P.S. Salhewara, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), VERSUS 1/ State of Chhattlsgarh Through The Secretary, Forest Department Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C-G-), Divisionai Forest Officer, For- a Division Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), 3. Labour Court, Through : Presiding Officer, Under the Industriai Dispute Act, Labour Court, Rajnandgaon (C-G-), PETITIONER WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2261227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Xng my v m XI-HC 78 3a wan, @mn‘qr, Wis a wrguwuwetgFL H zoo m W (1WKE) 1‘ man ma 31km mim‘r-x 'qvrc‘h‘ 1E fgra? rm WWW éamnm Mahan Shrivastava, JJ r WWW i [SB : Hon’ble Shri Manind 12. 12.20 1 1 Shri Harsh Mahant, c unsel for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, D .‘ Advocate General for the State, on advance copy. This petition has bee filed by the petitioner seekilfg to assail correctness and validity 'of order dated 28.2.2011 passed by the Labour Court dismissing the petitioner’s claim for reinstatement, ,i Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the learned Labour Court has dismisse the claim of the petitioner even though the petitioner had placed terial evidence, oral and documentary on record to show that the etitioner had worked for a period of 240 ‘ days immediately preceding date of his termination. He submits that the petitioner had al placed on record muster—roll, which indicates that the petitio er had continuously worked in the ‘ establishment of the respo dent. He submits that the Industrial Court committed serious e ror of jurisdiction in holding that the petitioner has failed to make out a case of violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of i 94 7”). A perusal of the order shows that the claim of the petitioner has been dismissed by the Llhbour Court, holding that the petitioner e a e s XI-HC»—78 WW, We; W Wm'wMvqwatlzu 1H > zoo mm (Wt?) WWW mmm v2— WW WW kaifmm has failed to place any 01§al or documentary evidence on record, to Show that he was in empl yment after 1998. The requirement of law, to get beneflt of Section 2 F of the Act of 1947 is that the petitioner is required to prove that e‘ actually worked for 240 days during a period of twelve calendar months yreceding the date of his termination. I find that this essential requirement has neither been pleaded nor any evidence has been led by the petitioner, oral or documental. Learned ‘counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the muster-roll, which admittedly are in relation to period prior to 1998. No material could be placed either before the Labour Court or even before this Court to substantiate that the petitioner was in employment after 1998. Tierefore, I am not satisfied that a case for interference in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. The petition has-no merit. The same deserves to be dismissed d. and is accordingly dismiss (D Sd/— .9 Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Praveen