PRAYER :

Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent in I.D.No.73 of 1995 dated 19.09.2022 and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with backwages, continuity of service with all attendant benefits.

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the award passed by the first respondent/Labour Court in I.D.No.73 of 1995, dated 19.09.2022, and consequently, seeking a direction to the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service, back wages and all attendant benefits.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Machine Man in the second respondent- Press and worked from 25.02.1987 to 31.03.1990. Thereafter, he worked as a Compositor from 1990 to 1992. At the time of his appointment, the petitioner was required to produce an educational qualification certificate. Subsequently, on verification, it was revealed that the certificate produced on behalf of the petitioner was a bogus certificate. Consequently, after conducting a departmental enquiry, an order of termination was passed against the petitioner. Challenging the order of termination, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court. However, the Labour Court dismissed the Industrial Dispute.

Challenging the said award, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that, admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as a Machine Man in the year 1987 in the respondent-Press. The petitioner did not produce the educational qualification certificate himself and the same was produced on his behalf by the Union before the authorities. Subsequently, on verification, the said certificate was found to be bogus. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he had studied only up to the third standard and had not studied up to the eighth standard. However, there was no minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post of Machine Man/Assistant Machine Man. Therefore, in the absence of any prescribed minimum educational qualification for the said post, the order of termination passed against the petitioner is unsustainable. Hence, the learned counsel would pray for appropriate orders.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the facts of the present case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as a Machine Man in the year 1987. As per the bye-laws of the respondent-Society, the minimum educational qualification prescribed for the said post is completion of eighth standard. The petitioner himself has admitted that he had studied only up to the third standard and had not studied up to the eighth standard. Therefore, the petitioner did not possess the minimum qualification prescribed for the post to which he was appointed. The learned counsel would further submit that, subsequently, the educational certificate produced on behalf of the petitioner was found to be bogus and, after following due process and conducting an enquiry, the order of termination was passed. The Labour Court, after considering the materials available on record, has rightly upheld the order of termination. Hence, there is no warrant for interference with the award passed by the Labour Court.

This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a Machine Man in the year 1987. It is also not in dispute that, as per the bye-laws governing the respondent-Society, the minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post was completion of eig