- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. This writ petition is directed against award dated 30-7-1996 passed by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Kanpur in Industrial dispute No. 34 of 1989. Through the said award the petitioner-workman has been held not to be entitled for any relief.
(2.) CENTRAL Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide notification dated 25-1-1989 referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court/industrial Tribunal : "whether the action of the management of Reserve Bank of India, Kanpur in striking off the name of Sri Gopi Nath Sharma from the list of approved Peon-cum-Farrash is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?" According to the petitioner he was selected by Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Kanpur vide order dated 19-2-1974 against the causal vacancies of permanent employees, and that during the period from May 1975 to April, 1976 petitioner worked for more than 240 days and became entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F read with Section 25-D of ID Act. The further case of the petitioner is that meanwhile he passed High School, hence, his name was not included in the next list and his services were orally terminated. Employer i. e. Manager, Reserve Bank of India Kanpur in his written statement before the Labour Court which is Annexure CA-4 to the counter-affidavit filed in this writ petition firstly took a preliminary objection to the effect that reference was barred by time as it had been made after about 13 years and that petitioner was wait listed for the post of Farrash in 1973 and validity of the said list was extended from time to time. It was also stated in para 3 (iii) that in the case of candidates who are not offered regular appointment in the bank service during the currency of the waiting list in which their names are borne, they are included in the next waiting list and that as per the procedure then followed by the Bank, candidates over qualified for the post to which they were originally selected were not considered eligible for inclusion in the fresh waiting list. Accordingly Sri Gopal Nath Sharma who had passed matriculation in 1975 could not be considered for the post of Farrash (Prescribed educational qualification being standard IV to standard VIII) at the time of preparation of fresh waiting list in 1976. Alongwith written statement charge showing the working days of the petitioner was filed according to which from July, 1975 to June 1976 petitioner worked only for 58 days. The Labour Court by the impugned order held that the claim was belated and petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F of ID Act as he had not completed 240 days in any calendar year. For arriving at the said finding Labour Court placed reliance upon the fact that the management had given the evidence of Kanhaiya Lal who had stated that concerned workman had not completed 240 days in any calendar year and he was not cross-examined, hence his evidence was unchallenged. As far as the question of validity of reference is concerned, it has been held that the Industrial Tribunal/labour Court cannot go into the validity of the reference. The employer can challenge the reference order on the ground of delay through writ petition as held by the Supreme Court in AIR 2000 SC 839. However, as the reference order was not challenged by the Bank, hence, Labour Court was obliged to decide the matter. Labour Court was not authorized to go into the validity of the reference including delay. As far as the question of validity of discontinuing the services of the petitioner due to over qualification is concerned, it is no more res integra. Supreme Court in the following authority has held that over qualification (High School) cannot be disqualification for peon in sub-ordinate judiciary where maximum qualification prescribed is VIII pass. AIR 2000 SC 919.
(3.) SUCH an approach amounts to discouraging acquisition of education. On the one hand so much emphasis is laid upon literate society for curing innumerable problems of the country and on the other hand some Government Departments/undertaking and agencies discourage acquisition of higher educational qualification by disqualifying the person for service. SUCH an approach is clearly arbitrary discriminatory and not in national interest. Even if the stand taken by employer Bank that petitioner had not completed 240 days in a calendar year is taken to be correct, it will not make much difference. In the reference order there was no mention of Section 25-F. By virtue of the reference Labour Court was required to Judge as to whether the action of the bank in striking off to the name of the petitioner from the list of approved employees was justified or not.;