v^'- C^ 1 ^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (L) N0. f2>Lf'7^0F 2007 s'-+-^ PETITIONER r RESPONDENTS Bagdr Nursing Home Through : Dr. Shakun Bagadi, Near Geeta Press, Sakd Bazar Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Smt.'Rukhmani Sathwane W/o, Shri Rambrishna Sathuwane Near Shiv Mandir, Gandhi Nagar Lakhe Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) The Presiding OfBcer Under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 Labour Court, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/2270F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 2. E3 ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON (L) No. 1342 of2007 PETITIONER : BagdiNursingHome. VERSi KESPONDENTS : Smt. Rukfamani Sathwane & Another, WRK£ETCT!QNUM>ER_AmiCI^226_QFTIffiCQNSTnimQNQFIfca2^ SB: Hon'ble Shi-i Satuh K. Agnihotri, J. Pi-esent: Shri Vmod Deshniukh, Advocate for the petitioner. Sl-iri Alban. Toppo, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. (Passed on 19 day of Januar^', 2011) 1; Challenge in tfus petition is to the order dated 24.08.2006 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Labour Court, Raipur. in Case No. 101/2000/ID Acfc'Reference, whereby the Labour Court has directed the petitioner to reiustate the respondent No. 1 on the post of Aya wifh 50% back- Vi'ages. 2. Leamed counsel appearine for the petitioner submits that initially, fhe respondent No. 1 has raised a dispute before the Conciliation Qfficer, in respect ofher alleged oral termination on 13.02.2000, whieh failed, aiid a reference was made to the Labour Court. The Labour Court registered the case as Case No. 1010/2000/ID Act/Reterence. The respondent No. 1 alleged that prior to her temiination- the provisions ofsection 25-F ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not complied and thus, her termination was illegal. Shri Deshmukh lurtliei- submits tha.t the leamed Labour Coin't after recording fhe evidence of the panies, in an arbitran' and illegal marmer, has directed to reinstate the petitioner on her post wifh 50% backwages, when the petitioner has cs^ 2 specifically coutended that the respondent No. 1 herself had abandoned the job Irom 31.12.1999, wifhout giving any prior notice to the petitioner. 1'hus, she was not entitled to anyrelief 3. Shri Deshmukh .further submits that the leamed Labour Court has ftirtlier not given any fmding wilh regard to woriung ofthe respondent No. 1 for a period of 240 days in fhe preceduig year witii the petitionei-. Thus, the order impugned herein, suffers from gross illegality and m-egularity, and deservesto be set aside. 4. On tlie other hand, Shri Toppo, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 submits that the impugned order is just and proper as ttie Labour Court, after appreciation ofthe evidence, has rightly come to fhe conelusion that ttie responde.nt No. I was entitled to reinstatement with 50% backwages. However, Shri Toppo fairly submits that no issue with regard to working ofthe respondent No. 1 for 240 days in the preceding year has been discussed in the inipugned order and no finding has beea recorded. 5. Heard leamed coimsel appeat'ing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. On pemsal of Ihe impugned order, it is surprising that the Labour Court has directed reinstatement of the respondent No. 1 without observing or discussing the requirement ofprovisions ofsection 25-B ofthe Act, 1947 wherein fhe pre-condition is that a worJanaii should have worked for 240 days or more m the preceding year, has come to the coaclusion that the respondent No. I was terminated from service without complying with the provisions of section 25-F. In such cu-cumstances, fhe order dated 24.08.2006 (Annexure P/4) is not ^.^ sustainable in the eyes of law. (See: The State ofM.P. v. Bhairav PrasadMishra^). . 7. to view ofthe above, the impugned order dated 24.08.2006 (Annexure P/4) is quashed. Tbe, the niatter is remitted backto the Labour Court, Raipur to consider the requirement ofsection 25-B ofthe Act, 1947 to aseertain whether the respondent No. 1 was in continuous employment for 240 days ia tfae preceding year, aiid tiiereafter only, the question of compliance or no compliance ofthe provisions ofsection 25-F ofthe Act 1947 may be considered. Since the matter is old, it is expected that fhe matter may be considered by the Labour Court at the earliest, preferably within a period ofthree monfhs from the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order. 8. The petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. Amit Sdf- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ' W.P. No. 3500/1996, passed on 23.04.2008