State Of Haryana vs Haryana Co-operative Transport LTD.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1976 Supreme(SC) 479

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD AND P.K. GOSWAMI, JJ.
The State of Haryana, Appellant
Versus
The Haryana Co-operative Transport Ltd. and others, Respondents,
Civil Appeal No. 1164 of 1970,
D/-2-12-1976.
Advocates appeared
M/s. Naunit Lal, Girish Chandra and R.N. Sachthey, Addvocates, for Appellant; Mr. S.B. Wad, Advocate, Amicus Curiae, for Respondent No. 1.

Advocates:
GIRISH CHANDRA, Navnit Lal, R.M.Sachthey, S.B.VAD

Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act - Section 10 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 226 and 227 – Termination from services - Post of a Judge of lab our Court - Award was without jurisdiction - Whether who gave his award as Presiding Officer of lab our Court was qualified for being appointed as a Judge of Lab our Court - Whether or not any power existed under which may have been lawfully appointed to act as a Judge of this court hold that presumption that he was duly appointed which arises from fact of his having acted as a Judge of Court since November has not been rebutted - 1st respondent filed Writ Petition in High Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of Constitution praying that award given by 2nd respondent be set aside on ground inter alia that he was not qualified to hold post of a Judge of lab our Court and therefore award was without jurisdiction - Writ Petition having been allowed by a Division Bench by its judgment has filed this appeal by special leave - Presiding Officer of Lab our Court was imp leaded to Writ Petition as 2nd respondent - Only question for decision in this appeal is whether who gave his award as Presiding Officer of lab our Court was qualified for being appointed as a Judge of Lab our Court - Section 7 (1) of Industrial Disputes Act provides that appropriate Government may constitute one or more Lab our Courts for adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter specified in Second Schedule to Act - A Lab our Court under Section 7(2) shall consist of one person only to be appointed by Government – Held, No order of appropriate Government or of Central Government appointing any person as chairman or any other member of a Board or Court or as presiding officer of a Lab our Court Tribunal or National Tribunal shall be called in question in any manner and no act or proceeding before any Board or Court shall be called in question in any manner on ground merely of existence of any vacancy in or defect in constitution of such Board or Court - It is true that Section 9 (1) is worded so widely and generally that it could cover any and every challenge to appointment to particular post therein mentioned - But it is impossible to construe provision as in derogation of remedies provided by Articles 226 and 227 of constitution - Rights conferred by those articles cannot be permitted to be taken away by a broad and general provision in nature of Section 9 (1) of Act - Words in any manner which occur in Section 9 (1) must therefore be given a limited meaning so as to bar jurisdiction of civil courts in ordinary exercise of their powers to entertain a challenge to appointments mentioned in sub-section - High Courts have taken like High Court in instant case a correct view of scope and meaning of Section 9 (1) of Act by limiting its operation to ordinary powers of civil Courts - Rights conferred by Arts. 226 and 227 can be abridged or taken away only by an appropriate amendment of Constitution and their operation cannot be whittled down by a provision like one contained in Section 9 (1) of Act - Accordingly it is open to High Courts in exercise of their writ jurisdiction to consider validity of appointment of any person as a chairman or a member of a Board or Court or as a presiding officer of a Lab our Court Tribunal or National Tribunal - If High Court finds that a person appointed to any of these offices is not eligible or qualified to hold that post appointment has to be declared invalid by issuing a writ of quo warrantor or any other appropriate writ or direction - To strike down usurpation of office is the function and duty of High Courts in exercise of their constitutional powers under Arts. 226 and 227 - Appeal dismissed

Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, J. :- The 1st respondent is a co-operative transport society carrying on transport business at Kaithal, District Karnal, State of Haryana. The Society terminated the services of respondents 3 and 4 who were working with it as conductor and driver, respectively. The State of Punjab, on June 22, 1964, referred the dispute arising out of the dismissal of respondents 3 and 4, under Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) for the adjucdication of the Labour Court, Rohtak. That Court was then presided over by Shri Jawala Dass. On shri Dasss retirement, Shri Hans Raj Gupta was appointed on June 4, 1965, as the Presiding Officer of the Court. The reference was thereafter heard by him and on April 16, 1966 he gave an award directing the reinstatement of respondents 3 and 4 with 50% back-wages from the date of their dismissal until the date of reinstatement. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court is the 2nd responednt to this appeal.

2. Being aggrieved by the award, the 1st respondent filed Writ Petition No. 1575 of 1966 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, praying that the award given by the 2nd respondent be set aside on the ground, inter alia, that he was not qualified to hold the post of a Judge of the labour Court, and therefore, the award was without jurisdicition. The Writ Petition having been allowed by a Division Bench by its judgment dated March 26, 1968 the State of Haryana has filed this appeal by special leave. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court was impleaded to the Writ Petiton as the 2nd respondent.

3. The only question for decision in this appeal is whether Shri Hans Raj Gupta who gave his award as the Presiding Officer of the labour Court was qualified for being appointed as a Judge of the Labour Court. Section 7 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act provides that the appropriate Government may constitute one or more Labour Courts for the adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter specified in the Second Schedule to the Act. A Labour Court, under Sec. 7(2), shall consist of one person only to be appointed by the Government. Sub-section (3) of Sec. 7 reads thus :

"(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the presiding officer of a Labour Court, unless -

(a) he is, or has been a Judge of a High Court; or

(b) he has, for a period of not less than three years, been a District Judge or an Additional District Judge; or

(c) he has held the office of the chairman or any other member of the Labour Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act. 1950 (48 of 1950), or of any Tribunal, for a period of not less than two years; or

(d) he has held any judicial office in India for not less than seven years; or

(e) he has been the presiding officer of a Labour Court constituted under any Provincial Act or State Act for not less than five years ".

It was common ground in the High Court that Shri Gupta did not satisfy the qualifications laid down in any of the clauses (a), (b), (c) and (e) of Sec. 7 (3). It was, however, urged in the High Court, in the first instance, that Shri Gupta had held a judicial office in India for not less than seven years and was, therefore, qualified for being appointed as a Judge of the Labour Court under clause (d) of Sec. 7 (3). This argument was made before the learned Chief Justice of the High Court who, while hearing the Writ Petition singly, felt that the question raised was of public importance. He, therefore, referred the matter to a Division Bench. The contention that Shri Gupta was qualified to hold the office of a Judge of the Labour Court under clause (d) of Sec. 7 (3) was, however, given up by the State before the Division Bench. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant, the State of Haryana, rightly did not pursue the unstatable contention.

4. Shri Hans Raj Gupta was initially working as an Upper Division Clerk-cum-Head Clerk. Thereafter, he wo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document