HEGH $QUR‘? QF CHHAT’I‘ISGM%H 3%? EEL§S§£§§£ $ing§e aaach Wm FQEE‘éan N0365$ a? 2§§2 The State of Chhattisgarh 1s the petitsoner in this writ peé‘ztion med under Art’cies 226/227 of the Constitution of 1ndia‘ It calls in question the leganty or otherwise of the award passed by the Labour Court in Case Noigli. DAct RefemoeQOOi dated 8—1 2—2001. (2} The Labour Court, by its impugned award dated 8—12-20Q’i, has aiioweci the ciaim petition fiied by the first respoodent and has directed the petiiioner/Siate to reinstate ihe first respondent in the service with 53% ’oaox wages from the date of orai iermination tiii the date of reinstatement. (3) The firsi. respondent was initiaiiy working as oaiiy wager emoioyee with the petitioneriState. it appears that he mer' with an accident. The petitioner/State, taking a sympathetic view, had oontinued the services of the firs? respondent as a'ChowKidar for a period from 414—10—1§95 to 1-2—2GGG. 'i'imt’ioie 3hri Hi" Bette, é‘ma‘. §e§éiéon$r State cf Chhattisgarh ihmuqh the Executive Engineer: Buém‘éng & Road Pubiic Works Department Pas Khairagarh, Digtrict Rzajaandgacn‘, Chhattiégarh Vs. §gs§mndents 1. Samram Q”) Dwarka 830. Gopakam Chandei Viimge Jhuramadi, Past smkha ‘v’ia—Chhuikhaajam, Dist Rajnamdgaan. Chhattisgam 2. Presiding Gfmer Labour Caur:‘ Disiricf Ramamdgaori, Chhatiiagam ?s*asem: Shri Sume3h Bajaj. Gava'hmerst Advocate fw‘ ihe petitionen’State. Shri Pankaj Agrawal, cvunsel for re$p0ndent No.1. QRI‘aL UREJER {Rassed en 19‘“ Marsh, 2cm?) Thereafterx the petitioner/State has oraliy termmated the services of :he first {espondeni (4) Being aggrieved by this action of the petitionerlSiaie, the firet respnnaent had {aised a dispute before the Lawour Coun‘, Rainandgaon {Chhafiiegarm The claim petition fiied by the first respondent was registered by the Laoour Court in Case No.9ii.D.Aot Refernce/2001 (5) The respondent in the claim petition. who is an Executive Engineer, Pubiic Works Depanment, had fiied his counter and it was hie case that the ciaimant, iiei, the first respondent herein was empioyed under a scheme known as Jawahar Rojgar Yojana and after ihe said scheme came to an end‘ the services of the claimant was also put to an end by the respondent, i.e,, the petitioner herein/emptoyer. in support of his ctaim the respondent — Executive Engineer, in the dispute, had examined himsetf as DIW—‘i, but quite curiousiy has not produced any document in support of his statement. V8; I x T’ the Laboer Court, keeping in view the factoai aspects at the matte? and not accepting the defence tiled by the respondent — Executive Engineer, has passed the impugned award. it is the correctness or otherwise of the said award is caiied in question by the petitioner under Anicie 227 of the Constitution of india. (7) Learned Government Advocate appearing for the petitioneri‘State wouid submit that the Labour Court c‘ouid not have shifted the onus of proving that the first respondent herein was empioyed under a scheme known as Jawahar Rojgar Yojana and after expiry of the said scheme, the services of the first respondent was oraiiy terminated. Therefore, the teamed Government Advocate submits that the reasoning and the conciusion reached ‘ by the Labour Court is arbitrary, iiiegai and unjustified and, therefore, requests to set aside the said award Learned counsei appearing for the first respondent abiy justifies the impugned award Ukgg (8) it was the case of the first respcndent herein that he was reguiarw employed by the petitioner/State, After he met with an accident, he was oraHy texrminaied from the service under the Jawahar Rojgar Yojana and thereafter he wee asked t0 work as Chowkider in a Rest House from 14—1 0—1 995 t0 1—2— 2000 and he was regularly employed by the petitloner. The petltloner herein in the defence filed before the Labour Court had pleaded that the flrst respondent was empleyed under a scheme and after expiry of the said scheme, the services of the first respondent was discontinued (Q‘; Having pieaded the said defence, it was fer the petitioner to have substantiated the same. Further, it is for the petitioner, who would be having all the records with them, to have discharged the burden and that burden cannot be shifted on the first respondent who is a poor warkmeh. ' in my opinion) the Labour Court was justified ih coming to the conclusion that the petitioner/State has tailed to discharge its burden and, therefore, the hrst respondent is entitied to the relief sought for in the claim petition. (1 O) The reasoning and the conclusion reached by the Labour Court, in my opinion, is neither arbitrary nor iilegai and does not cati for any interference by this Court Accordingty, the writ petition requires to be reiected and it is rejected Ordered accordingly. i Sdl- Chjef Jusu'ce