Decentralization of adjudication of labour disputes within each district is not unreasonable and serves the interests of justice by allowing greater attention to local realities.

B.V. Nagarathna, J. - Government Order No. LAW 164 LCE 2014, dated January 22, 2015 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) is assailed in this writ petition. Initially, the writ petition was listed before a learned Single Judge, who, by his order dated June 6, 2015, has referred the matter to Division Bench, by holding that the writ petition raises questions of public interest and importance.

2. The first petitioner is All India Trade Union Congress, represented by its President, the second petitioner is Engineering and General Workers' Union, represented by its General Secretary and the third petitioner is Industrial Law Practitioners' Forum, represented by its Secretary. These petitioners have assailed the aforesaid Government Order, by which, the State Government has decided to empower all Principal District and Sessions Judges in the various Districts of the State, where there are no Labour Courts, to adjudicate industrial disputes, as specified in Second Schedule to the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act', for the sake of brevity). The said order lists the names of places where presently the Labour Courts are functioning and, also, bears a table containing the list of Courts, wherein jurisdiction to adjudicate labour disputes is to be transferred to the Principal District and Sessions Judges of those districts where presently there are no Labour Courts functioning.

3. The petitioners have assailed the said Government Order, by contending that under Section 7 of the Act, Labour Courts have to be constituted and the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts, which are so constituted under Section 7 of the Act, cannot be transferred to the Principal District and Sessions Judge of the particular districts. Elaborating the said contention, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, drew our attention to Section 7 of the Act and contended that section envisages constitution of one or more Labour Courts for adjudication of labour disputes relating to any matter specified in the Second Schedule to the Act and for performing such other functions, as may be assigned to them under the Act, and therefore, what is required under the said section is constitution of Labour Courts and not conferment of jurisdiction on a particular judicial officer of the District Court. He, therefore, contends that the present arrangement of having Labour Courts at nine different places whose jurisdiction is spread to other districts, where there are no Labour Courts, is a good arrangement and that the impugned Government Order disrupts this arrangement, and it is contrary to Section 7 of the Act. It is, also, contended that at present, Labour Courts in the State of Karnataka have been constituted, considering the number of cases arising under the Act and such other allied laws at specified places and that the Presiding Officers, who preside over such Courts bestow their attention to labour matters without being distracted by other subjects, but by the impugned order, if the Principal District and Sessions Judge of the District is entrusted with cases arising under the Act and allied laws, then, no special attention can be given to labour disputes. It is, also, contended that there may be only a few cases arising within a particular district and, therefore, importance may not be given to such litigation. Also, it would be easier for office bearers and representatives of Labour Unions to appear before Labour Courts having jurisdiction over one or more district/districts rather than traveling to different districts in order to attend to labour cases which would have an adverse impact on time, energy and resources at their disposal. It was also sought to be contended that even for practitioners engaged in labour matters concentration of work in the existing Labour Courts is more beneficial, rather than having matters disbursed at various District Headquarters.

4. Allaying the aforesaid apprehensions of the petitioners, le