IMPORTANT POINT
Unless and until the Presiding Officer is having the requisite qualification in accordance with Rules, 2020, he is not entitled to continue in service. if that be so, the 2nd respondent who was not qualified as per act 1947 as it stood before amendment act 2017, was not entitled to continue in service in accordance with the interim order passed by the Apex Court on the disposal of the writ petitions

JUDGMENT :

SHAJI P.CHALY, J.

Writ petitioner claims to be a trade unionist representing the employees of various industrial establishments, including establishments wherein the appropriate Government is the Central Government, and is said to be conducting cases on behalf of the members of the trade union in the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals in the State of Kerala in representative capacity and is actively involved in the collective bargaining process under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. The writ petition is filed seeking a writ of quo warrantoor any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling upon 2nd respondent i.e., V.Vijayakumar, Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam, to explain under what authority he is holding the post of Presiding Officer, and a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside Ext.P4 order passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi dated 1st November, 2018, appointing 2nd respondent as Presiding Officer in Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam, for a period of 5 years with effect from the date of assumption of charge of the post or upto the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier. However, it is made clear in the said order that, the appointment of Sri. V. Vijayakumar shall be regulated in terms of Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and Other conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017, hereinafter called, 'Rules 2020', and would be subject to the final outcome of W.P.(C)No.279 of 2017 and other connected petitions pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

3. The case projected by the petitioner is that the post to which the 2nd respondent is appointed is a public office created under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called, “Act, 1947”. Act, 1947 prescribes the qualification for appointment to the post of Presiding Officer-Labour Court and Industrial Tribunals. Accordingly, the qualification to the post of Presiding Officer-Labour Court prescribed under section 7(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is as follows:

“he is or has been a Judge of a High Court; or a District Judge or an Additional District Judge for a period of not less than three years; has held any judicial office in India for not less than seven years; or has been the Presiding Officer of a Labour Court constituted under any provincial Act or State Act for not less than five years; or is/has been a Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) or Joint Commissioner of the State Labour Department, having a degree in law with minimum of seven years' experience in the labour department including three years of experience as Conciliation Officer; or is an officer of Indian Legal Service in Grade III with three years' experience in the grade.”

4. According to the petitioner, 2nd respondent lacks the aforesaid qualifications prescribed under Section 7(3) of Act, 1947, and Ext.P4 order evinces that the qualification of the 2nd respondent as Additional Provident Fund Commissioner of Employees Provident Fund Organization has been reckoned for appointment to the post of Presiding Officer of Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam.

5. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention advanced is that, in the absence of the qualification as mandated in section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, 2nd respondent is unqualified to hold the post of Presiding Officer of Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court .

6. Second respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. Among other contentions, it is stated that, 1st respondent had vide its letter dated 10.8.2017, addressed to the Secretaries in the Central Ministries/Departments and the Chief Secretaries in all the States/Uni