1. Appointment of Presiding Officer of Industrial Tribunal — Qualification dispute under Section 7-A(3) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Challenge to appointment based on judicial experience. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1966 Supreme(SC) 225
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO, C.J.I., M. HIDAYATULLAH, S.M. SIKRI, R.S. BACHAWAT AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.
State of Assam, Appellant
Versus
Horizon Union and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1565 of 1966, D/-23-9-1966
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Senior Advocate, (Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate with him), for Appellant; Mr. D. Goburdhan, Advocate, (for No.1) and Mr. S. N. Prasad, Advocate, (for No. 2), for Respondents.
Advocates:
D.GOVERDHAN CHARY, M.C.SETALVAD, NAUNIT LAL, S.N.PRASAD
D.GOVERDHAN CHARY, M.C.SETALVAD, NAUNIT LAL, S.N.PRASAD
A person is qualified as a Presiding Officer of an Industrial Tribunal if they held the office of Additional District Judge for three years, regardless of actual work performed. Additionally, Central legislation prevails over repugnant State legislation under Article 254 of the Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 7-A(3) and Section 2(r) - Constitution of India - Article 254 - Qualification for appointment as Presiding Officer of an Industrial Tribunal - A person who has held the office of an Additional District Judge for a period of not less than three years is qualified - To satisfy this requirement, it is sufficient that the person held the office; it is not necessary that they must have actually worked as an Additional District Judge for the entire period. (Para 5)
(B) Repugnancy - Central Act vs State Act - Where a Central Amendment Act inserts a clause that serves as an exhaustive code on a specific subject, a corresponding clause in a State Act that is repugnant to it is void under Article 254 of the Constitution - A requirement for consultation with the High Court under a State Act is void if the Central Act occupying the same field does not mandate such consultation. (Para 6)
(C) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(r) - Definition of "Tribunal" - A Labour Court does not fall within the definition of "Tribunal" for the purpose of determining qualification under Section 7-A(3)(b). (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
An appointment of a Presiding Officer of an Industrial Tribunal was challenged on the ground that the appointee lacked the requisite qualifications. The appointee had held the office of an Additional District Judge for over three years, although for a portion of that period, he served as the Registrar of the High Court while continuing to hold the office of Additional District Judge. The appointment was made without consultation with the High Court, which was a requirement under a State amendment but not under a subsequent Central amendment.
Findings of Court:
The appointee was duly qualified as he held the office of Additional District Judge for the required period. The requirement for consultation with the High Court under the State Act was void due to repugnancy with the Central Act under Article 254 of the Constitution.
Issues: Whether holding the office of an Additional District Judge while officiating as a Registrar satisfies the qualification under Section 7-A(3)(aa); whether the proviso of a State Act requiring consultation with the High Court remained valid after a Central Amendment Act occupied the field; and whether a Labour Court is considered a "Tribunal" under Section 2(r).
Ratio Decidendi: To satisfy the qualification of having been a District Judge or Additional District Judge for three years, it is sufficient to have held the office; actual work in that capacity is not mandatory. Furthermore, under Article 254 of the Constitution, a State law is void to the extent of its repugnancy with a Central law that occupies the field as an exhaustive code.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether holding office while officiating in another capacity satisfies qualification — Whether consultation with High Court was mandatory — Whether Labour Court experience constitutes Tribunal membership. (Para 3 , 6 , 9 )
3. Holding an office satisfies qualification regardless of actual work performed — Central legislation overrides repugnant state legislation under Article 254 — Labour Courts are not Tribunals. (Para 5 , 6 , 9 )
4. Central law prevails over repugnant state law under Article 254 — Qualification based on holding office is satisfied even if the person does not actually work in that capacity. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Writ petition dismissed. (Para 10 )
6. Does the requirement to have been a District Judge or Additional District Judge for a specific period require actual work in that capacity?
No. To satisfy the requirements of Section 7-A(3)(aa), it is sufficient that the person held the post for the required period; it is not necessary that they actually worked as a District or Additional District Judge for that duration. (Para 5 )
7. What is the effect of a Central Act that inserts a clause into a section already amended by a State Act on the same subject?
Where a Central Act is intended to be an exhaustive code on a subject, it impliedly repeals any repugnant provisions of a State Act. Under Article 254 of the Constitution, the State provision is void to the extent of such repugnancy. (Para 6 )
8. Does experience as a Presiding Officer of a Labour Court qualify a person as having held office in a Tribunal under Section 7-A(3)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act?
No. A Labour Court is not a Tribunal within the meaning of Section 7-A(3)(b) read with Section 2(r) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (Para 9 )
Judgment
BACHAWAT, J. : This appeal by special leave raises the question whether respondent No. 2, Shri B. C. Dutta was qualified for appointment as the Presiding Officer of an Industrial Tribunal under S. 7-A (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.Section 7-A inserted in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by Act No. 36 of 1956 with effect from March 10, 1957 read as follows :
"7-A 1. The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Industrial Tribunals for the adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter, whether specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule.
2. A Tribunal shall consist of one person only to be appointed by the appropriate Government.
3. A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the presiding officer of a Tribunal unless -
(a) he is, or has been a Judge of a High Court; or
"(b) he has held the office of chairman or any other member of the Labour Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, or of any Tribunal, for a period of not less than two years."
Assam Act No. 8 of 1962 which received the assent of the President on April 25, 1962 inserted in S. 7 - A (3) after Cl. (a), the following clause:
"(aa) he has worked as a District Judge or as an Additional District Judge or as both for a total period of not less than three years or is qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court:
Provided that the appointment to a Tribunal of any person qualified under this clause shall not be made without consultation with the Assam High Court; or".
2. In 1964, the Parliament passed the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act (No. 36 of 1964). This amending Act inserted in S. 7-A (3) after Cl. (a) the following clause :
"(aa) he has, for a period of not less than three years, been a District Judge or an Additional District Judge; or".
3. By an order of the State Government dated December 7, 1965, Shri Dutta was appointed the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, Assam, Gauhati. Respondent No. 1 flied a writ petition in the Assam High Court challenging this appointment. The High Court quashed the appointment on the ground that Shri Dutta lacked the qualification required by S. 7-A (3). Counsel for the State of Assam submitted that Shri Dutta had been an Additional District Judge for over three years and was, therefore, qualified for appointment. This submission involves consideration of the question whether Shri Dutta, while working as Registrar of the Assam High Court, held the office of an Additional District Judge.
4. The Assam Judicial Service (Senior) Rules, 1952 show that the strength of the Assam Judicial Service (Senior) and of each kind of post therein is as follows: -
"Senior Grade I
Registrar 1
District Judges 3
Senior Grade II.
Additional District Judges 3."
The Governor has power to increase the cadre by the creation of additional permanent or temporary posts. The post of Registrar is filled up by the Chief Justice preferably from Grade I or Grade II of the Service. Other posts in the cadre are filled up by the Government in consultation with the High Court.
5. On August 16, 1954, Shri Dutta, then Officiating Subordinate and Assistant Sessions Judge, was appointed a temporary Additional District and Sessions Judge. While he was officiating as an Additional District Judge, his services were lent by the State Government to the High Court, he was temporary promoted to Senior Grade I and on March 8, 1957 was appointed by the Chief Justice as the Registrar of the Assam High Court. It is not disputed that between August 16, 1954 and March 8, 1957 Shri Dutta held the office of an Additional District Judge. The records show that until April 24,1958 the Government continued to retain Shri Dutta in his office of Additional District Judge. On this footing, the Government passed an order on March 26, 1958, whereby Shri Dutta, then Officiating Registrar of the High Court, was confirmed in Senior Grade II with
