Judgment H.S.Bedi, J. 1. The appellant was employed as a Sanitary Beldar in the Office of Director Health Services (Anti Malaria Department) Chandigarh, and on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, was promoted to the post of Sanitary Supervisor on adhoc basis on 16.5.1986. He was reverted to the post of Saniutry Jamadar/Beldar vide Order dated 14.5.1987. This action was challenged by the appellant through the Workers Union as being illegal and arbitrary. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under Section l0(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") In the written statement field before the Labour Court an objection was taken that the department was not an "industry" within the meaning of the Act. It was specifically pleaded on behalf of the Management that the qualifications prescribed for the post of Sanitary Supervisor was that of Matriculations with Science subjects and as the appellant had passed the Prathma Examination conducted by the Hindu Sahitya Samelan, Allahabad, which had not been recognized as equivalent to Matriculation by the Chandigarh Administration, he was not eligible for promotion to the post of Sanitary Supervisor. It was also pleaded that on a complaint being received regarding the ineligibility of the appellant, the matter had been referred to the School Education of U.P. Board, Allahabad which had informed the Chandigarh Administration that the Prathma Examination had not been recognised by it as equivalent to the Matriculation and it was on this basis that the Chandigarh Administration had also decided not to recognise Prathma Examination as equivalent to that of Matriculation. 2. The Labour Court on a consideration of the matter vide order dated 1.4.1991 held that the respondent-department was an industry. It also observed that the order of the reversion of the appellant was unjustified in the light of the fact that Prathma Examination conducted by the Hindi Sahitya Samelan, Allahabad had been recognised by some of the institutions like the Punjab University, Chandigarh and the Punjab School Education Board as equivalent to their Matriculation Examination and as such merely because the Chandigarh Administration had not recognised this qualification as being equivalent, it could not be said that the appellant was not eligible to hold the post of Sanitary Supervisor. The Labour Court further held that while reverting the appellant to the post of Sanitary Beldar, he had not been given any notice and thus the principles of natural justice stood violated and consequently the reversion order was bad in law. The Labour Court accordingly accepted the reference, set aside the order of reversion of the appellant with all consequential benefits. 3. The respondent-Department challenged the award of the Labour Court by filing a writ petition which had been allowed by a learned Single Judge by order dated 20.9.1995 which has been impugned in this appeal. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that merely because the Chandigarh Administration had not recognised the Prathama Examination from the Hindi Sahitya Samelan, Allahabad as being equivalent to Matriculation Examination, it could not be said that the appellant did not possess the requisite academic qualification and was thus not eligible for promotion to the post of Sanitary Supervisor. It was argued that this aspect of the matter had not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge. 5. When the matter was put up for motion hearing on 21.11.1995, the appeal was admitted and the operation of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge was stayed. The said order was subsequently confirmed on 8.7.1996. It may be noticed that pursuant to the said order of stay, the appellant has continued to work as a Sanitary Supervisor. During the course of hearing today, the learned Counsel for the appellant has produced on record a circular dated 18.2.1970 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Education and Youth Services, New Delhi which has been addressed to the Education Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories, which is marked as Mark A by us, in support of his plea that Prathma Examination of Hindi Sahitya Samelan, Allahabad had been recognised as being equivalent to the Matriculation Examination. The counsel has also pointed out that the reversion order passed by the respondent-department had in fact been passed without having regard to the fact that there was no rule or notification requiring the appellant to pass the Matriculation Examination from a particular university and thus the order of reversion of the appellant was not sustainable in law. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. In the light of various documents on record which have been referred to by the Labour Court and also in the light of circular of the Government of India, Mark A, we find merit in the argument of learned Counsel for the appellant. We are, therefore, of the opinion that order of reversion of the appellant from the post of Sanitary Supervisor to the post of Sanitary Beldar could not have been made on the ground that the qualification of Prathma Examination was not equivalent to Matriculation Standard. It has also been pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that during the pendency of this appeal, the appellant has also cleared 10+2 Examination from the National Open School,[New Delhi which had permitted him to take the examination which clearly goes to show that the examination passed by the appellant had been recognised by the National Open School, New Delhi as equivalent to Matriculation Examination. We are therefore, of the opinion that this appeal deserves to succeed. 7. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order dated 20.9.1995 of the learned Single Judge is set aside and that of the Labour Court dated 1.4.1991 is restored. There will however, be no order as to costs.