HIGH GQURT OJF GHHATTISGARR AT BILASPUR Wrif Petition fL) No. 3 lof2008 PETITIONER "~^ RESPONDENTS Ghan Shyam Pafel, S/q Vishal Marar, Aged?ahout; 37 years, R^ village &• Post Pisid,'P.S.,Kasdol, District Rarpur(CG). , VER8US ',;; . .:::': : '. : ,:^ .1: . 1. State of Chhattisgarh •T'hroygli its Secretary, Department of Water ResourGes, DKS Bhawan, Raipur(CG). ; 2. Ttie Executiye Engineer, .I3epartHient o^ Resources, ConstruGtion Divislon, Kasdat, DistriGt . Raipur,(CG).: :• ,,: , : .:.... : ......:...-.. : ;. 3. Sub Divisional OfBcer, ^Balar Cartal Water R.esources, Sub Division Kasdol, District Raipur •<CG).,": : • • , ', ":,;:. 4. Pi-esidmg Qfficer, Industrial Court, Raipur. (WRIT PETrTIONHNiXER ARTICLE .2270F THE CONSTITUTIQN OF INDIA) C^: aaH't)Ie^6-.'SatisK K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : ShriAsh6kPatil,A.dvocaj:e:fR]RfIie@etitioner. MissSunitaJain,Pai^IEawYer'for:tfi.eState.. , . ORALORDER (Passed on tlus 09th^day ofMay, 2008) 1. By this petitien, the petitioner seeks a direetiofi t6 fhe1'^ reinstate the petitipneT in service with filll back wages. 2. The indisputable ifacts, mQutshell, are thaf:tlie petitibfier ^TOS appoilrted' as a worker m the deparfaHent of'Water ^ A.daily wages.basis. Tlie services of tKe petitioner was discontinued ,on 01.08.1994. ;Being aggrieyed, fhe petitiQher approacfaed tUeI.-aboi.ir -Courtunderthepr6visi6nspfSection31(3)readwithSectipn61ofttie Chhattisgarh liidustrial Relations Act, 1960 (fbr shQi-t '•the Acf, •I960), T&e 'Labour Gourt, on 24.083002, (iisiiussed the application •t^itle, '^s^'SSiSSS'SSt ;1..:^ ;1: ; • ; '"- i\,l ^.}- ^e^: petittoner on the ground fhatthepetiiioneFwas^w^ and his services was (liscoritinued as ao longer required; Further, the petitioner faas failed to sstablish tKatihe was in eontinuous service and' has worked fbr240.daysintheprecedingyearor in any year. Thus, the petitioner was npt entitled^tOithe^benefits und®^^^^^ Section25FoftheIridustriaIDiisputesAct, 1947(fbrsfaort:'IDA^., ^ 3. Being aggrieyed, the petitioner prefen-ed an appeal before the Indysfri.al Court, Raipur. Ttie appellate Coyrt confitmed the findiags recprded tey the Labour Court that the petitiorier was working as daily-wagers aad he had npt worked fbr 24Q:^days in any year includirig the preceding year wfaen the petitioner was discbntinued from service on 01,.08.1994. The appellate court aeGOrdiugly dismissed the apjpeat. T&us, this petition;.l:. :. , ... ::,. _:- ; . ^ ', 1 ;1' , ''::,.. '.: , - 4. Seefion'25F offheE3A;..?provtdes-forcQnditi6npreGedent.,fbr retrenchmenf of a workmaa wKerem conditibn is cohtinuous seryice for : not less fhan one year underthe ei&F^oyer sfaall entitte WQrkman tQ the benefifsofretrenchmentcompensatiorioronemonth'snotiGeinwnfifig and refrerichraenf cotupehsation; payable befbre rgtrenchment. Continuous service fbr not less than one year.under provisions of secfion 25 read with section 25B oFtKe IDA meatls 240 days in the . precedingyear.: ~ • ' '::';:?":: •': . •'. .' '. 1 : • '' :: ..•'•.: • 5. In the matfer pfMimicipal.Cotuicy,ST^anpurv.Surm the SupremeCdurtfaeldasunder:^-' , : ' .. ' Sy:::::^SS9 ^'^XiSK^ "12. The.^ab@ujs^ ©ourt^;^ p ceede<i :wrcmgl}ffion 3^ prppf tQ'ssfa61istejiQn-cO]^leti:QH?^24 witNn a period^^of ^tvrelye montKs preeettng ' fhe temunatibn, was ott the maa.agement. The burden was on tKe workraas" ' l':.'i •:,••. !.', ..•'• ; :•: •'...' ' " ' ' .-;•:.-•• 6. In the matter of Suren^anagar Di^. Paiichayat;and^^^a^ Gangabeitfcaljibl^iandotKers^^ ^ '"^" .''12.ItwasKeldiQ-&HtBeSeGasestKalthe~burdeH;'ofpr(Xj Ws^a^ "^ ^oSiaSaii W^s^ Gonfinupusly fbr'240 d^s fQrtfce^FeGgdir^'one ye^ it is fbr the. worfanaa to .adduce eyidefice .apart jrom :examining ^lMmsel£,to :pr6ve j±te: factum of^^^^^^ eniptoyn lrtpfthe'en:igloyer^ '•-.^'^^^^^^^^^^^ C 7. In^viewoffhewellsettletfdicta;lmd(fc^^ ;afQresaMlcaSes;arid^applying;ttie'samet6;^ the'findi]^s' iscade£l,;^:;ffi&^T^ accorclance wffi^lay^K^|Sx|epf^^ . 8. THe petitioti is accordmgl^'dtsmissed^. summarily. ^^y" ^: :(3606) :S'SCC''T32