2003 Supreme(SC) 302

2003(2) Supreme 672
Supreme Court of India
(From Gujarat High Court)
Chief Justice of India and S.B. Sinha & A.R. Lakshmanan, JJ.
High Court of Gujarat & Anr. —Appellants
versus
Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat & Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 8574-8577 of 2001
Decided on 10-3-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Mahendra Anand, S.K. Dholakia, Sr. Advocates, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advocate.
For the Respondents : R. Venkataramani, Sr. Advocate, Vimal Chandra S. Dave, Ms. Neelam Kalsi, P.K. Manohar, Vijay Kumar, Advocate for Vishwajit Singh, Advocate Sanjay Kapur, Advocates.

Very important point
Section 10 of Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 cannot be read to mean that the President of the Industrial Court must be appointed from among the existing members of the Industrial Court, the President can also be directly appointed provided he possesses requisite eligibility requirement.

Headnote:Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946—Section 10—Industry Court—Composition—Appointment of President—Shri N.A. Acharya was recommended as the President of Industrial Court for appointment by nomination vide notification dated 7.12.2000—Quashed by High Court—Appeals to Supreme Court—N.A. Acharya was found eligible for the post of President—Whether it was necessary that he must be appointed as member at the first instance? (No)—High Court reversed—Appeal allowed.

       Held (Per CJI and A.R. Lakshmanan, J) : In our opinion, in the case of appointment of President of the Industrial Court by nomination, it is not necessary that he must be appointed as Member at the first instance. Section 10(2) of the B.I.R. Act deals with the composition of Industrial Court, which does not lay down the mode of appointment. The words of Section 10(2) of the B.I.R. Act are not that the President shall be appointed from one of the current Members of the Industrial Court. In our view, the High Court has erroneously read these words in Section 10(2) of the B.I.R. Act. It is also seen that the proposed Recruitment Rules were framed by the High Court at the request of the Government and pending approval of the Government. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appointment of Shri N.A. Acharya as President of the Industrial Court is not in breach of Section 10(2) of the B.I.R. Act and also not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. To be eligible for appointment by nomination, the candidate must not be connected with any Industry as ­defined in the B.I.R. Act and must (1) not be less than 45 years of age, and (2) have for atleast ten years either held a judicial post in India or been an advocate for High Court or have expert knowledge of Industrial matters. Based on the recommendation of the High Court, on its administrative side, the Government of Gujarat issued the Notification on 7.12.2000 whereby Shri N.A. Acharya had been appointed as the President of the Industrial Court. Considering the totality of the facts, it is clear that by recommending the appointment in question, the High Court of Gujarat had not only acted within its rights but the same had been done in due discharge of the constitutional duty. In our view, Section 10(2) of the B.I.R. Act cannot be read to mean that the President of the Industrial Court must be appointed from amongst the existing Members of the Industrial Court when the provision in fact is not in such terms. The High Court has confused the concept of the President of the Industrial Court being from among the Members of the said Court with the erroneous concept that the said President must be from amongst the existing members of that Court. A reading of the provisions of Section 10 of the B.I.R. Act clearly spells out that, apart from the mode of selecting the President by promotion amongst the Members, the President can also directly be appointed from the sitting or retired High Court Judges or from the Judges of City Civil Court, Ahmedabad and District Judges, who fulfills the eligibility requirement for appointment as Member of the Industrial Court. The High Court, in our view, has failed to appreciate that the words of Section 10(2) of the B.I.R. Act are not "that the President shall be appointed from one of the current Members of the Industrial Court". The narrow interpretation of Section 10(2) of the B.I.R. Act and the reasoning of the High Court, in our view, completely rules out the appointment of President, Industrial Court through the mode of nomination. In other words, the High Court failed to appreciate that once a person is appointed as the President of the Industrial Court, he automatically becomes a Member. Section 10(2) of the B.I.R. Act only envisages that the President is the senior Member of the Industrial Court and that the appointment of President of the Industrial Court is inherent in his appointment as Member of the Industrial Court. This Court, in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Labour Law Practitioners Association & Ors., (1998) 2 SCC 688, held that the Labour Court Judges and the Judges of the Industrial Court belong to Judicial service and recruitment is to be made in accordance with Article 234 of the Constitution of India. The existing Recruitment Rules did not comply with the provision of Article 234 of the Constitution of India. The State Government, therefore, referred to the High Court for consultation and approval of the Rules. The administrative side of the High Court framed the Draft Rules and the appointment offered to Shri N.A. Acharya was in accordance with the Draft Rules. This apart, the eligibility criteria for appointment on the post of the President of the Industrial Court has been determined by the High Court and the same has been incorporated in the Draft Recruitment Rules at the request of the Government. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that no illegality is committed by recommending the name of Shri N.A. Acharya as the President of the Industrial Court, for appointment by nomination. The appeals are ­allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (Paras 16 to 20)

       Held (Per S.B. Sinha, J., concurring) : Although I agree with the conclusions arrived at by my learned Brother, having regard to the importance of the question involved, I would like to assign additional reasons therefor. (Para 21)

       Both under the existing rules as also the Draft Rules mode and manner of appointment have been laid down. Even in absence of the Draft Rules in terms of Rule 34 of the Recruitment Rules for the President of Industrial Court appointment can be made by nomination. Thus, appointment to the Post of President could be made by way of nomination also subject to the nominees holding requisite qualifications laid down therefor. (Para 52)

       For the reasons aforementioned, taking any view of the matter it cannot be said that the appointment of Shri N.A. Acharya was illegal or invalid. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained which is, therefore, set aside. The appeal is allowed. (Para 55)