HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR v WP. No. 5006 of 2005 President, Parent Teacher Association ESP Primary School 2 Camp 2, Bhikii. Parent Teacben #seec‘atwn BSP Pnmary achod-z Camp-2 Bhuai Secremry-cum-Pnnctpa! Versus Respondents 1. Siste of Chhamsgarh, Through Secreéary, Labour Department. Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur. Presrdlng officer Labour Court Durg 3. Ram Auawya S/o ahn €hlnlya Rio Block No1 A Street No 6 sector 6 Bhrial Distt Durg (C G) Petitioners 1 . 2. “1R” P§TIT19E UNDER ART!§L§ 23$IZZ? 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. v Shti H. B. AgarWal, Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj AgarwaL Advocate for the respondent No. 3.. ORDER ( Passed on this 26‘“ day of June, 2MB) 1. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 27.1 .2005 (AnneXure PH), passed by the Labour Court, Burg. in Case No. 7II.D.ActIZOO1 (Refrence). 2. Learned counsei 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 empioyed as and when work was available for him. He had networked for 240 days inthe 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 \ the respondent/employee. had worked for 240 days and this is the precondition for grant of benefw under Section 25-F of the 'lndustriai Disputes Act, 1947 . However. it has been pieaded and the evidence to that effect has been produced. . lt is well established principle of law that it is for the workman to prove that he has worked for 240 days in the preceding year. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in a cateha of decisione haveheid 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 27.1.2005 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court: Durg to consider the case of the respondent/employee afresh and recordiindings asto whether the concerned empioyee has worked for 240 days or not and pass appropriate order afresh, in accordance with iaw. . The respondent/employee wouid be at liberty to make an application for continuation of his service before the authority below and the same shail 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 allowed. No order as tocosts. Thakur Sdl— smish K. Agnihoiri Judge