S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J. - (1.) THE true import of the legislative change wrought in Section 7A(3)(aa) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, with regard to the prescribed qualifications for appointment 'as the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal by Section 3 of the Industrial Disputes (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1976, is the spinal question which had originally necessitated the admission of this set of three Writ petitions for hearing by the Division Bench and later by the order of reference before the Full Bench.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the parties are agreed that the pristinely legal question aforesaid is common to all the three cases and its determination would, therefore, govern all of them. Consequently, it suffices to advert briefly to the necessary matrix of facts in C.W.P. No. 4411 of 1982 (TulPar Machine & Toot Company v. The State of Haryana and Ors.). The core of the challenge therein is to the appointment of Respondent No. 3, Mr. M.C. Bhardwaj as the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, Faridabad in Haryana, and it is, therefore, unnecessary to advert to the merits of controversy betwixt the Petitioner -concern and its former employee Shri Joginder Pal, workman -Respondent No. I. It is adequate to notice that the Respondent -Workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the State of Haryana for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Haryana of which admittedly the Presiding Officer is Respondent No. 3, Mr. M.C. Bhardwaj. The latter rendered the Award, dated January 13, 1982 by which he held that the termination of the service's of workman was neither justified nor in order and he was consequently entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and with full back wages. The writ Petitioners had challenged the award inter alia on the ground that Mr. M.C. Bhardwaj, Respondent No. 3, was not qualified to be appointed as District Judge under Article 233 of the Constitution of India and was, consequently ineligible for appointment as the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal under the amended Section 7A(3)(aa) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act'), as applicable in Haryana. Apart from challenging the Award on merits as well and seeking other reliefs, a writ of quo warranto in express terms is sought against Respondent No. 3, prohibiting him from continuing as the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal and further to quash the impugned Award, annexure P/ll. In the return filed on behalf of Respondent No. 4, the tactual background in paras 1 to 12 of the writ petition is not controverted. On the legal issue, the stand taken is that Respondent No. '3' is fully. qualified to be appointed as District Judge and Ms appointment as such did not require the recommendation or consultation with the High Court.
(3.) IN the connected C.W.P. No. 2537 of 1982 (Kishan Singh v. The State of Haryana and Ors.), the Respondent, State has again taken an identical stand. Mr. M.C. Bhardwaj, Respondent No.3 therein has further averred in his return that he has practised as a pleader and an Advocate at Rohtak for more than ten years and has taken the plea that the qualifications for appointment of a District Judge are laid down in Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India and in accordance therewith, he fulfilled the qualifications for appointment as Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, Faridabad.;