$^^i F RFWgit ^ Isr^^ //!// ES THEfflGH COURT OFJUDICATUREATBILASPUR(C.G) W. P. fL) No.\^S$' /2010 PETITIONER /: . ^.^-^ .,^^^^:--' %%^"0^-" Smt. Minto Singh W/oLateRamSingh, Ageabout 22 years, R/o Labour Colony, Jute Mill, Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS Director Para Medical Course Pd. Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Hospital College, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA "y>. RESPONDENT ;^ r^?^ %/<;sv ig^^" liai HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (L) No. 1255 of2010 PETITIONER : Smt.MmtoSingh. VERSUS KESPONDENT : Director, Para Medical Course. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri. J. Present: Shri S.P.Kale, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 29th day ofMarch, 2010) , 1. Challenge in this petition is to the award dated 27.02.2009, whereby reference case filed by the husband ofthe petitioner, was dismissed. 2. The brief facts, as projected by the petitioner are that the husband of the petitioner namely Ram Singh was appointed on 04.07.2002 as Office Assistant. Thereafter, his services were terminated on 27.12.2003. A dispute was raised before the Labour Commissioner, Raipur. The Labour Commissioner, in tum referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Raipur. The Labour Court firamed the following questions oflaw: "^n <ft ^Fiftf? SIT. sft ui'i<ri!ii ftf? w •^qr ^sra^tqi^T ^r ^ ^s^Rt t? ?ift ^ "at q? ftw •ttgiidi w TTCT t WTT ~^V 'CTq'ET •^' 31-)l^c;ch va ^t qqr fiT??r ft^ 'SST^ ^rft??" 3. The claim' of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that sufEicient materials have not been produced to come to any conclusion and it has also not been proved that the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in the preceding year. According to the petitioner, he was appointed on 04.07.2002 and his services was terminated on 27.12.2003. It cannot be held that the petitioner has completed 240 days within that period, as admittedly no 7. 8. document has been produced to establish the case of the husband of the petitioner. On the contrary, the stand of the respondent before the Labour Court is that the provisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act, 1947') are not applicable to the respondent as the same is an autonomous body. During pendency of the claim case before the Labour Court, the husband of the petitioner Late Ram Singh died and the present petitioner alongwith her daughter were impleaded as claimants. On perusal of the facts produced before the Labour Court as well as this Court, no case has been made out for grant of any relief as the; basic requirement for grant of retrenchment allowaace under Section 25-F of the Act, 1957 iscompliance ofsection 25-B ofthe Act, 1947. Section 25-B of the Act, 1947 defines continuous service i.e. if a workman has actually worked under an employer during the period of 12 calendar months for 240 days, the same shall be taken as continuous service except in case of work performed by the workman for 190 days ifhe is employed below ground in a mine. The petitioner has failed to establish that the husband of the petitioner has worked for 240 days in the preceding one year and as such, the husband of the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under section 25-F of the Act, 1947. The impugned award dated 27.02.2009 (Annexure P/l) is just and proper as the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that for want of sufficient materials, no relief could be granted to the petitioner. The impugned award warrants no interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. No order asto costs. ___—————-' Satish K. Agnihotn Judge