Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
K.M.Ramesh, Secretary Labour Law Practitioners' Association – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Writ Petition No.23527 of 2010
Decided on : 23-04-2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF AMENDMENTS - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2010, SECTIONS 7, 7A - The court found Sections 7 and 7A of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 unconstitutional, emphasizing the requirement for the appointment of Presiding Officers of Labour Courts and Tribunals to be in accordance with Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution, which mandate that such appointments must be made from the judicial service, thereby preserving the independence of the judiciary. The court's decision was influenced by previous judgments affirming that only qualified judicial officers should preside over judicial tribunals.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Sections 7 and 7A of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010, arguing that these provisions allowed non-judicial officers, such as Deputy Labour Commissioners, to be appointed as Presiding Officers of Labour Courts, contrary to the constitutional mandate for judicial appointments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the amendments to Sections 7 and 7A violated the principles of separation of powers and independence of the judiciary, as established by Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution. It concluded that the provisions allowing non-judicial appointments were unconstitutional and unenforceable.
Issues: Whether Sections 7 and 7A of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 are unconstitutional for permitting non-judicial officers to preside over Labour Courts and Tribunals, violating the constitutional provisions regarding judicial appointments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appointment of Presiding Officers of Labour Courts must comply with Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution, which require that such appointments be made from the judicial service, thereby ensuring the independence of the judiciary and adherence to the principle of separation of powers.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was disposed of, declaring Sections 7 and 7A of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 as unconstitutional and unenforceable, with no further orders necessary.
ORDER :
(Order made by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy)
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring Section 7 and 7A of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (No.24 of 2010) published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Subsection (ii) dated 15.09.2010 as ultra vires, unconstitutional and illegal.
This Writ Petition is filed to declare Sections 7 and 7A of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (Act No.24 of 2010) published vide Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Subsection (ii) dated 15.09.2010 as ultra vires, unconstitutional and illegal.
2. We have heard Mr.S.Kumaraswamy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.M.D.Ranndranathan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent.
3. After hearing the learned counsel on either side and perusing the relevant records of the case, this Writ Petition would require no further orders from us, for the following facts:-
3.1 As far as Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is concerned, feeling aggrieved by the very same contention that by the impugned amendment, the Deputy Labour Commissioners, etc., who are not part of the District Judicial Services were made eligible to be appointed as Presiding Officers of the Labour Court, Labour Law Practitioners' Association and others approached the Bombay High Court inter – alia praying that the amended Section 7 of the Act was void and illegal and contrary to Article 234 of the Constitution of India.
3.2 The learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court after considering the issue on hand, held that the Labour Court being a Judicial Tribunal should be manned only by a District Judge and further directed that the post of the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court be filled up only as per Article 234 of the Constitution of India, i.e., from among the District Judges. The intra Court appeal which was preferred was dismissed by a Division Bench and further appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
3.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India considered the matter in detail in the State of Maharashtra Vs. Labour Law Practitioners Association and Ors., (1998) 2 SCC 688 and affirmed the Judgment of the Bombay High Court and disposed of the appeal with the following directions and it is essential to extract paragraphs Nos.20 and 21 of the said Judgment which read as follows:-
The amendments to the Industrial Disputes Act allowing certain executive officers as Presiding Officers do not violate constitutional mandates regarding judicial independence.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the retirement age of Presiding Officers of Industrial Tribunals, based on the conflicting provisions of the Kerala Service Ru....
A District Judge who is appointed as Presiding Officer of Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court would continue to be in Judicial Service under the Control of the High Court and would not be entitled to co....
Ministerial staff of specialized judicial tribunals performing duties equivalent to administrative heads in district courts are entitled to pay parity under the principle of equal pay for equal work,....
Nomenclature of the petition or the nature of relief sought for is not the only determining factor, but the nature of power available to be invoked before the High Court is one such important guiding....
The definition of 'Workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act excludes those in supervisory roles who exceed statutory salary limits, impacting jurisdiction over disputes.
The court ruled that a workman who performs supervisory duties and earns above the statutory salary limit does not qualify as a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, rendering the Tribunal's a....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
