- (1.) The first respondent, Labour Law Practitioners' Association is an association of members practising in the Industrial and Labour Courts in the State of Maharashtra. The Association filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the appointment of Respondents 2 and 3 who were Assistant Commissioners of Labour, as Judges of the Labour Court at Pune and Sholapur under a notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra dated 8-3-1979. They also prayed that the provisions of the amended Sec. 9 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and the amended Sec. 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act insofar as these provisions authorised the appointment of Assistant Commissioners of Labour as Judges of the Labour Court, were void and illegal and contrary to Art. 234 of the Constitution. There was also a prayer in the writ petition for a direction to the State of Maharashtra to comply with the provisions of Art. 234 of the Constitution in appointing Judges of the Labour Court. A learned single Judge of the High Court set aside the notification of 8-3-1979 and also gave a direction to the State of Maharashtra to comply with the provisions of Art. 234 of the Constitution while making appointments of Judges of the Labour Court. Being aggrieved by this judgment and order, the appellant-State of Maharashtra preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court which appeal has been dismissed. Hence, the present appeal has been filed before us.
(2.) Labour Courts have been constituted in the State of Maharashtra under the Industrial Disputes Act, the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and also under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. Prior to 1974, the qualifications of a person to be appointed as a Judge of the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act as laid down in Sec. 7 were as follows : "(a) that he was or had been a Judge of a High Court; or (b) that he had for a period of not less than three years been a District Judge or an Additional District Judge; or (c) that he had held the office of the Chairman or any other Member of the Labour Appellate Tribunal or of any Tribunal for a period of not less than two years; or (d) that he had held any judicial office in India for not less than seven years; or (e) that he had been the Presiding Officer of a Labour Court constituted under any provincial Act for not less than five years." By the Industrial Disputes (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1974, Sec. 7 was amended and three more sources of recruitment to the post of a Judge of the Labour Court were added. These are : "(d-1) he has practised as an Advocate or Attorney for not less than seven years in the High Court, or any Court, subordinate thereto, or any Industrial Court or Tribunal or Labour Court, constituted under any law for the time-being in force; or (d-2) he holds a degree in law of a University established by law in any part of India and is holding or has held an office not lower in rank than that of a Deputy Registrar of any such Industrial Court or Tribunal for not less than five years; or (d-3) he holds a degree in law of University established by law in any part of India and is holding or has held an office not lower in rank than that of Assistant Commissioner of Labour under the State Government for not less than five years;"
(3.) Under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, as it originally stood, Sec. 9 provided that no person shall be eligible to be appointed as a Judge of the Labour Court unless he possessed the qualifications, other than the qualification of age, laid down under Art. 234 of the Constitution for being eligible to enter the Judicial service in the State of Maharashtra. By Maharashtra Act 47 of 1977 dated 24-10-1977, Sec. 9 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act was amended by substituting a new sub-sec. (2) for the original sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 9. The amended sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 9 provides as follows : "9. (2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Presiding Officer of a Labour Court, unless : (a) he has held any Judicial office in India for not less than five years; or (b) he has practised as an Advocate or Attorney for not less than seven years in the High Court or any Court subordinate thereto, or in any Industrial Court, Tribunal or Labour Court constituted under any law for the time-being in force; or (c) he holds a degree in law of a University established by law in any part of India and is holding or has held an office not lower in rank than that of Deputy Registrar of any such Industrial Court or Tribunal, in both cases for not less than five years." By this amendment, the requirements contemplated under Art. 234 of the Constitution were deleted.;