Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. The main ground raised in the writ petitions was that the writ petitioners possess the prescribed educational qualifications as also the experience qualification, that their applications were accompanied by experience certificates duly countersigned by the competent authority after enquiry and therefore, the non-inclusion of their names in Ext.P4 ranked list is arbitrary and illegal. It was contended that the reason stated in Ext.P5 letter for rejecting their applications is not tenable, that in similar circumstances, a learned single Judge of this court has in W.P.(C)No.7587 of 2011 held that in cases where records are not available with the employer, the Assistant Labour Officer cannot decline to countersign the experience certificate but has a duty to make an enquiry and on being satisfied W.A.No.1461 of 2015 & Conn. Cases about the genuineness of the claim made by the applicant, countersign the experience certificate. It was contended that the writ petitioners are similarly placed and therefore, they are entitled to be included in the ranked list.

The substance of the averments in the counter affidavit is that the experience certificates produced by the petitioners in W.P.(C) W.A.No.1461 of 2015 & Conn. Cases No.33110 of 2014 are not in accordance with the stipulations in the form prescribed by the Commission and forming part of the notification. It was contended that as the Assistant Labour Officers, who have countersigned the experience certificates, have countersigned the certificates on the basis of the enquiry conducted by them and without verifying the relevant records, the experience certificates were rejected.

13. In paragraph 7 of Ext.P1 notification it is stipulated that the candidates seeking appointment shall have not less than three years experience in a body building or body repair workshop having SSI registration. It is also stipulated that the experience certificate shall be in the proforma given therein. The writ petitioners do not have a case that experience certificates produced by them are in accordance with the proforma prescribed by the Commission. Their case is that as the experience certificates issued by their employers have been duly verified and countersigned by the Assistant Labour Officers having jurisdiction, the Commission is bound to accept them, though they may not be in the form prescribed by the Commission. They also rely on Ext.P6 judgment delivered by a learned single Judge of this court on 4.4.2011 in W.P.(C)No.7587 of 2011. In that judgment, a learned single Judge of this court held that the Assistant Labour Officer, Thrissur, IIIrd Circle, who was the second respondent therein, cannot simply say that since the employer is not maintaining records, he will not countersign the experience certificate. It was held that it was the W.A.No.1461 of 2015 & Conn. Cases duty of the second respondent therein to ensure that the employer complies with the statutory requirements by keeping appropriate registers, that he has also a duty to inspect the workshops periodically to ensure that the employer maintains the statutory registers and therefore, he cannot refuse to countersign the experience certificate merely on the ground that records are not available with the employer to verify whether the candidate was employed as stated by the employer. In that view of the matter, the learned single Judge directed the second respondent in W.P.(C) No.7587 of 2011 to conduct an enquiry with the employer, the other employees of the establishment and persons residing nearby for the purpose of ascertaining whether the petitioner in that case had in fact worked in the establishment concerned during the period mentioned in the certificate and countersign the experience certificate, if it is found on such enquiry that the petitioner had in fact worked in the establishment. The learned single Judge did not consider the challenge to the prescription regarding countersignature and left it open.

14. It is only in a case where the entries in the experience certificate can be verified with the registers maintained by the employer, that the Commission can, as set out in Paragraph 30 of the General Conditions, take appropriate action against the candidates W.A.No.1461 of 2015 & Conn. Cases who commit malpractices by producing false certificates. The Commission will be deprived or denuded of the power to take action against erring candidates/countersigning officers, if candidates are permitted to produce an experience certificate countersigned after an oral enquiry is conducted by the countersigning officer and the Commission is compelled to accept such a certificate as valid. That apart, none of the candidates in the instant cases has challenged the competence of the Commission to prescribe the proforma of the experience certificate. The petitioners in the instant cases have no case that their employers were maintaining registers and records. However, relying on the observation in the certificate of experience produced in the instant cases, it is contended that the countersigning officers were satisfied that though the employers were not maintaining the records the writ petitioners were actually working in the different establishments and such satisfaction fulfills the requirement of the notification. The said contention is in our opinion plainly untenable. If power is conceded to countersigning officers to conduct an oral enquiry by examining the employer or other workers of the establishment concerned or the neighbouring residents, it will lead to a situation where bogus certificates can be issued to prove the experience of the candidates, thereby depriving the Commission of the opportunity to take action against them. The Commission will W.A.No.1461 of 2015 & Conn. Cases also be deprived of the right to verify the authenticity of the genuineness of the certificates for the reason that it cannot refer to or rely on any document to ascertain the genuineness of the certificate. The very purpose of introducing a form to ensure that bogus claims are not made will be defeated, if such a course of action is adopted.