The amendments to the Industrial Disputes Act allowing certain executive officers as Presiding Officers do not violate constitutional mandates regarding judicial independence.

JUDGMENT :

(P.M. MANOJ, J.)

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

"For these and other reasons that might be allowed to be urged at the time of hearing, it is respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to call for the records of the case and issue

1) declare Sections and 7(3)(g) and 7A(3)(b) and 7(3)(f) 7A(3)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as unconstitutional

ii) read down Sections 7(3)(f) and 7(3)(g) and 7A(3)(b) and 7A(3)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act as unconstitutional.

ii) be further pleased to issue such other writ, order or direction as are deemed just and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. The principal contention put forth by the petitioner is regarding the constitutional validity of the amendments brought to Sections 7 and 7A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the ID Act’) whereby the qualification for appointment to the post of Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals were amended. Pursuant to the said amendment, as per the law as it stands now, Joint Labour Commissioners and Deputy Chief Labour Commissioners are permitted to be appointed as Presiding Officers of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals. The amendment stipulates that a Degree in Law and at least seven years’ experience in the Labour Department, including three years of experience as a Conciliation Officer, would be the qualification that should be possessed by the candidates who aspire to be appointed to the said post.

3. The petitioner would contend that Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals are courts in the sense they are defined and mentioned in Article 234 read with 236(b) of the Constitution of India and appointment of Joint Labour Commissioners and Deputy Chief Labour Commissioners as Presiding Officers in the said Court/Tribunal would violate the constitutional mandates as laid down under Articles 14, 223 and 234 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner thus challenges the constitutional validity of Sections 7(3)(f), 7(3)(g), 7A(3)(b) and 7A(3)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the provisions which were incorporated by virtue of the aforesaid amendment.

4. The challenge primarily raised is on the ground of the violation of the doctrine of separation of powers and encroachment on the powers of the judicial domain. It was further contended that principles of exclusive control over the judiciary are not limited to traditional courts alone but extend to Tribunals because Tribunals are formed as an alternative to courts and perform judicial functions. The Tribunals are constituted in substitution of the court and similar standards of appointment, qualification and conditions of service to inspire the confidence of the public at large. Such contentions are raised on the strength of a reported decision in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd represented by its Chief Manager and others [2020 (6) SCC 1].

5. Further, it is contended that the labour court performs judicial functions. The labour court adjudicates upon the disputes that, had it not been for the Industrial Disputes Act, the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, would have fallen within the jurisdiction of the civil court to decide. Although ordinary civil courts may not be able to grant all the reliefs that are contemplated by these Acts, the labour courts decide disputes that are civil in nature. Therefore, the men who are deployed should be independent and should have sufficient judicial experience. The mention of High Court Judges and District Judges earlier in the Sections indicates that ordinary judicial officers from the civil judiciary must be selected at least so long as the separation of judiciary from the executive in public service is not finally achieved. The appointment of a person from the ranks of the civil judiciary carries with it an assurance which is unique. The functions