Point of Law: Rule 13 which provided that State Government may make amendment to Rules as may be deemed necessary in consultation with High Court was also deleted.

JUDGMENT :

Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

The petitioner in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 19 of 2021 is a learned Advocate of this Court. The writ petition was filed on 15.02.2021 with the grievance that after the retirement of Shri T.K. Chakraborty on 13.07.2019 as President of State Industrial Court, Raipur, the post has remained vacant for about one and half year.

2. Pleaded case of the petitioner is that in terms of Section 9(1) of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960, for short, “the Act of 1960”, the Industrial Court is to be constituted by a President and one or more Members. One Member, namely, Shri Shiv Kumar Tripathi, was appointed on 04.10.2019. However, for want of prescribed quorum, the appeals from Labour Courts and the reference cases from the State Government are not being adjudicated as any hearing by a lone Member would be illegal being coram non judice. As a result, pending cases are accumulating.

3. It is stated that appointment of the President of the Industrial Court is required to be made in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the Chhattisgarh Labour Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2015, for short, “the Rules of 2015”, read with Section 9 (2) (a), (b), (c) of the Act of 1960.

4. Accordingly, prayer was made for a direction to issue appointment order for the post of the President immediately.

5. In the return filed by respondents No.2 and 3 on 20.07.2021, it is stated that several applications were received from various applicants and the same were forwarded to the High Court vide letter dated 09.07.2019 seeking recommendation. Vide letter dated 04.02.2020, the High Court had made recommendation in favour of Shri Ravi Shankar Sharma, Principal Secretary, Law & Legislative Affairs Department, Government of Chhattisgarh. Subsequently, by letter dated 07.02.2020, the Department requested for recommending a panel of names for making appointment to the post of President from out of the said panel. In response thereto, vide letter dated 17.02.2020, it was communicated that as per the Rules of 2015, there is no provision for sending a panel of names.

6. It is stated that in terms of Section 9(1) of the Act of 1960, the State has to constitute Industrial Court for the State. It is further pleaded that the Rules of 2015 was not placed before the Cabinet for approval. Rules 6(3), 12 and 13 of the Rules of 2015 had been amended with effect from 19.07.2021 and that proceedings were initiated in accordance with the amended rules for making appointment. It is further pleaded that Industrial Relations Code, 2020, for short “the Code of 2020”, had also been notified and as per the mandate of the same, Chhattisgarh Industrial Rules, 2020 had been notified in the Gazette on 25.05.2021 calling for objections and suggestions and that once the Code of 2020 and the rules framed thereunder are implemented, there would be no post of President in the Industrial Court. The delay in appointment was explained because of amendments proposed and Covid-19 pandemic. It is also pleaded that the Member Judge of the State Industrial Court had been declared as head of the department vide order dated 07.07.2021 till regular appointment of President is made and a proposal was, accordingly, sent to the General Administration Department. After issuance of necessary orders, concerned Controlling Authority would perform the functions including release of payments, financial works, release of pension and gratuity, etc. It is stated that while in the month of June, 2019 there were 71 cases pending, in June, 2021 only 18 cases were pending at Industrial Court, Raipur and 62 cases in the Bench at Bilaspur.

7. Subsequent to filing of the aforesaid return, amendment application was filed by the petitioner to challenge the amendments effected in Rule 6(3), 12 and 13 of the Rules of 2015 vide Notification dated 19.07.2021 and to issue direction for appointment of the President on the basis of the unamended rules.

8. The petitioner had also f