$ HI$H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B£LASPUR WP. No: 5015 of 2005 Petitianers 1 . President, Parent Teacher Assaciation High Schooi, Sector-8, Bhiiai. Teachers Association, High Scheoi. $ector-8, B'niiai Respondents 1. sate af Chhatiisgarh, Through Secretary, Labour Department, Govt. of Presiding officer, Labour Court, Durg Ahiiya Bai, 'Wlo Teichand, R/o Biock 2. Secretary-cum-Principa!, Parent Veisus Chhattisgarh. Raipur. 33’“. Eurg No. LC1 (cm F Labour Camp, Bhiiai, Disti- WRKT PE?ITION UNQER ARTlCgE z26f22? SB: Hon‘bie Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihatri Shri N. K. Vyas, Advccate for the petitioners. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govt. Advocate far the respondent No.1. Shri H. B, Agarwai, Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agarwai, Advocate for the respondent Na, 3. oRDER ( Passed an this 26‘“ day 0f June, 2008)- A. . The petitiener has impugned the order dated 29.12005 (Annexure P/1), passed by the Labour Court, Durg in Case No. 61i.D.Act/2DOt/Refrence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Ne.3 w been working for one or the petitioner submits that the as working on daily wages basis as Sweeper. He had two hours every day and was paid accordingly. The respondent No.3 was employed as and when work was avaiiabie for him. He had not worked for 240 days in the preceding year Learned counsei 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/empioyee had worked for 240 days and this is the or eariier. go 7 H § @ precondition for grant cf benefit under Section 25-F of the industrial I Disputes Act, 1947 . However, it has been pleaded and the evidence‘to that effect has been produced. ' 4. it is weii established piincipie of iaw that it is fer the workman to prove that he has worked for 240 days in the preceding year. The Hon'bie Supreme Court in a oatena of deoisione have held that the conditions precedent to grant benefit under Section 25-F is working of 240 days in the preceding year. U! case. the impugned order dated-29.1.2005 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. The matter is remanded beck to the Labour Court. Durg to consider the case of the respondent/employee afresh and record tindings asto whether the concerned employee has worked for 240 days or not and pass appropriate order afresh. in accordance with law. 6. The respondentlemployee would be at liberty to make an application for continuation of his service before the authority below and the same shatl be considered and decided in accordance with law, having regard to the facts situation of the case. 7. ln view of the foregoing, this petition is aliowed. N'o order as to costs. in View of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the \K sal- Satjsh K. Agnihorri Judge Thakur