The Kerala Judicial Officer’s Association inter alia challenge the appointment of respondents 3 to 7 as Industrial Tribunals. They also seek a declaration that the post of Presiding Officers of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals are identical since it involves the same type of duties and responsibilities. A direction to the State of Kerala to treat the five posts of Presiding Officers of Industrial Tribunal as promotion posts for being filled up by duly qualified members of the Judicial service has also been sought for.

2. The petitioner contends that it is a registered association of judicial officers working in the State of Kerala. There are five Industrial Tribunals in the Kollam, Palakkad, Kozhikode, Idukki and Alappuzha districts. The submission is that as per the practice in vogue, existing District Judges are posted as Presiding Officers of the various Labour Courts in Kerala. However, District Judges are not appointed as Presiding Officers of the five Industrial Tribunals constituted under Section 7A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner also contends that the presiding Officers of the Industrial Tribunals are appointed from among practicing advocates by direct recruitment and respondents 3 to 7 have been recruited directly from the Bar. Contending that there is parity in the discharge of judicial function and service in an Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the post of Presiding Officers of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals are identical. Reference is made to Section 7 and 7A of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is stated that there is similarity in the qualification prescribed thereunder in relation to a Labour Court and an Industrial Tribunal, that the functions which are discharged by a Labour Court on one hand and a Industrial Tribunal on the other would be similar, if not identical, and consequently there is no reason why the method of appointment in so far as the Labour court is concerned should not be adopted in the case of an Industrial Tribunal as well.

3. Though as stated above, the petitioner Association had posed a challenge against the appointment of respondents 3 to 7 as Industrial Tribunals, in the writ petition, the said challenge was expressly given up by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time when the writ petition was heard. It is, therefore, not necessary to consider the said aspect.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Section 7 and 7A of the Industrial Disputes Act are similarly worded, that Presiding Officers of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals discharge judicial functions and service in a Labour Court and an Industrial Tribunal would come under the category of judicial service within the meaning of Article 234 of Constitution of India. On the premise, that District Judges were appointed as Presiding Officers of Labour Court, there is no reason why the members of the judicial service who were otherwise qualified under the said section should not be considered for appointment as Industrial Tribunals. His contention is that hitherto no member of the judicial service has been appointed as an Industrial Tribunal and that there is unjustifiable reluctance on the part of the Government in considering members of the judicial service for appointment to the post of an Industrial Tribunal.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioner’s Association and others (AIR 1998 SC 1233) to contend for the position that presiding Officers of Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts constitute judicial service and hence the recruitment of Labour Court Judges is required to be made in accordance with Article 234 of the Constitution of India. The contention seems to be that on a parity of reasoning, the same course ought to be adopted in the case of appointment to the post of Presiding Officers of the Industrial Tribunals as w