1998 (2) TMI 582 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the appointment of Assistant Commissioners of Labour as Judges of the Labour Court.
2. Compliance with Article 234 and Article 235 of the Constitution in appointing Judges of the Labour Court.
3. Interpretation of "judicial service" under Article 236 of the Constitution.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Appointment of Assistant Commissioners of Labour as Judges of the Labour Court:
The Labour Law Practitioners' Association challenged the appointment of respondents 2 and 3, Assistant Commissioners of Labour, as Judges of the Labour Court at Pune and Sholapur u/s 9 of the Bombay Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court set aside the Notification dated 8.3.1979 and directed the State of Maharashtra to comply with Article 234 of the Constitution. The Division Bench upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal.

2. Compliance with Article 234 and Article 235 of the Constitution:
The Court examined whether the Labour Court Judges fall within the scope of "judicial service" as defined in Article 236. It was held that Labour Courts perform judicial functions and are courts that adjudicate disputes of a civil nature. The Court emphasized that appointments to judicial service must be made by the Governor after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and the High Court, as mandated by Article 234. The High Court's interpretation that Labour Court Judges are part of the judicial service was upheld.

3. Interpretation of "Judicial Service" under Article 236:
The Court referred to the extensive definition of "District Judge" and "judicial service" in Article 236, which includes judges of specialized civil courts like Labour and Industrial Courts. The Court cited previous judgments, including Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Statesman (Private) Ltd. v. H.R. Deb, to emphasize the importance of maintaining the independence of the judiciary. The Court concluded that Labour Court Judges and Industrial Court Judges belong to the judicial service, and their recruitment must comply with Article 235.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the appointment of Labour Court Judges must adhere to the constitutional provisions ensuring judicial independence. The recruitment of Labour Court Judges should be in accordance with Article 235, and the High Court's interpretation was upheld. No order as to costs was made.