"ss'iss.'Ssaia^ MtSMasasi ^ '?"?-;:> HISH COURt QFCHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No. 5200 of20)5 Petitioner's 1. 2. Versus Res{»ndents 1; 2. 3. PreSident, Parent Teacher tesociation BSP Primary School, Sec-6, Bhilat. Secreary-cum-Principal, Parent Teachsrs Association, BSP Primary School,Sec-2,BMIal State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary,LabourE)epartment,Govt.of Chhattisgarh, Raipur. Presiding officsr, LabourCourt, Durg Lata Bai, W/o Late Shri Ravlnedra Kumar, R/o Bajrang Chowk, Supela, Bhitai,Distt.-Duig(C.G^ WRITPETmONUNDERARTICLE22e/227 OF THECONSTrrUTtON OF INDIA SB: Hon'bleMr. JusticeSatisfi K. Agnihotri ShriN.K. Vya?, Advocateforttie petitionere. ShriAjayE>(Sfivedi,DeputyGovt.AdyocatefortherespondentNo.1. Shrj H. B. Agarwal, Senior Actvocate withShri Panl®]Asanral, Advocate for therespondent No. 3. ORDER ( Passed on this 2^" day of June, 2008) 1. Thepetitionerhasimpugnedtheorderdated 22.1.2005 (AnnexureP/1), passed byfce Labour Court, Durg in Cass No.3/I.D.Act/2(K)1/Reft'ence. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitionsr submits that the respondentNo.SwasworkingondailywagesbasisasSweeper.Hehad been working for oneortwo hours e\(ery day and was paid accordingty, The respondent No.3 wasemployed as and v/hen workwas available for him. He had not worked Tor 240 days in the preced'ing year or eartier. 3. Leamed counse! appearing for the respondent No.3 submits that itis true thatit isnot recorded inthe ordsr passesl toy the Labour Courtthat tii®resRondsnt/emplcye^ Itiad worked for 240 dasre and Jthis is the iifiMii. r\- precondition for grant of benefrt under Section 25-F of the In^lusfrial Disputes Act, 1947 . Howsver, it has been pleaded and theevidence to that effect has been produced. 4. It is weil established principle of law that it is for the workman te prove that he has worked for 240 days tn the preceding year. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions have held thatthe conditions precedent to grant benefit under Sectton 25-F is woridng of 240 da^ in the precedingyear. 5. In view ofthe above, wiSrout e^ressing any opinion on the merite ofthe case.the impugnedordsr dated 22.1.20)5 (Annexure P/1)is quashed. The matter is remanded back tothe Labour Court Durg to consider ttie case of the respondent/employee afresh and record findings asto whether the coneemed employee has woriced for240 daysor not and passappropriate order afresh,in accordance with law. 6. The respondent/employee Would be at liberty to make an application for continuatton of his service before the authority below and the sameshall be considered anddecided in accordance with law, having regard to the facte situation ofthe case. 7. !n view oftte foregoing, this petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- ' SatishK.Agniiiotri judge Thafar :t4