SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J. - (1.) The appellants (for short, "employer") filed writ petition in the single Bench of this Court challenging the award dated February 11, 2000 of the learned Labour Court. Learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition vide order dated February 1, 2001. Against this order of learned single Judge, the instant special appeal has been preferred by the employer.
(2.) Contextual facts depict that the Reference was made by the appropriate Government to the Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur as to whether the termination of the services of the respondent-workman (for short, "workman") vide order dated May 23, 1994 was legal and justified and if not to what relief he was entitled for. Before the learned Labour Court, both the parties adduced evidence and it was found that the workman had joined the service on June 22, 1993 and he was asked orally on May 23, 1994 that his services stood terminated. Initially, the workman filed writ petition which was dismissed on July 8, 1998 with liberty to approach the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court the employer took the plea that the workman obtained employment by misrepresentation as after his joining it came to the notice of the employer that the workman was possessing higher qualification than the maximum qualification prescribed for the post and thus, he was not eligible for the post of Peon. The workman filed reply that there was no misrepresentation at the time of filling up the form. He had mentioned that he passed 9th class and failed in 10th class. The Labour Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties observed that the workman had continuously completed 240 days in a calendar year therefore, his termination was violative of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "1947 Act") as the workman had not been removed after holding the disciplinary inquiry. Liberty was however granted to the employer to hold an inquiry and remove the workman after complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of 1947 Act.
(3.) Having pondered over the rival submissions, we notice that the learned single Judge instead of considering the applicability of Section 25-F of 1947 Act which was the main issue involved in the writ petition, proceeded to analyse the nature of misrepresentation. Learned single Judge was of the view that the advertisement issued by the employer that candidate seeking appointment for the post of Peon should have passed 7th Standard but should not have studied beyond the 8th Standard, was unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Learned single Judge observed thus- "whatever may be the fault of the workman, the petitioner Bank is also equally at fault by prescribing such qualification. Advertising the vacancies in such a clandestine manner is impermissible in law....... In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere merely on the ground that the employment had been obtained by the workman by misrepresentation." Since main issue involved in the writ petition remains undecided, we have no option but to remit the matter back to learned single Judge for the fresh decision.;