Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, C.J.I., AND R.M. SAHAI, J.
ARVIND NARAYAN SORTI AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND ANOTHER.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 366 of 1994
Decided on 12-7-1994
ORDER
1. We have heard Dr Shankar Ghose, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners.
2. The petitioners are Presiding Officers and Members of the Industrial Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is not disputed that they are not drawn from the regular subordinate judiciary on deputation.
3. There are several contentions urged by Dr Shankar Ghose in support of this petition. One of them is that having regard to the nature of the duties performed and judicial powers exercised by them, the pronouncement of this Court in All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 288, will cover their cases and that their age of superannuation etc. should be regulated accordingly. We are afraid, this claim is not tenable. They are not directly covered by the said pronouncement and that scheme was confined to judicial officers appointed to the subordinate judiciary in the State.
4. It is, however, urged that there are other distortions and anomalies in the pay structure and conditions of the petitioners service vis-a-vis the Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts on whose orders, the petitioners exercise appellate powers. It is also submitted that certain representations have been made to the Government by the petitioners for correcting the said anomalies and that the said representations have not been considered. This claim is independent of the one based on the applicability of the pronouncement of this Court in All India Judges Assn. case {(1993) 4 SCC 288. It is open to the petitioners, if the representations are not disposed of by the Government within a reasonable time, to move the High Court for such relief as the petitioners consider they are entitled to. We do not, however, express any opinion either on the merits or justiciability of any of those issues.
5. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed.
For citation: 1995 Supp (2) SCC 150
Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
