9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Notification dated 7.12.2000 appointing Shri N.A. Acharya as President of the Industrial Court. 2. Interpretation of Section 10(2) and Section 10(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (B.I.R. Act). 3. Eligibility criteria for the appointment of the President of the Industrial Court. 4. Compliance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in the appointment process. 5. Validity of the appointment process and adherence to the Draft Recruitment Rules. Summary: Issue 1: Legality of the Notification dated 7.12.2000 The Supreme Court was called upon to consider the legality, correctness, and validity of the Notification dated 7.12.2000, appointing Shri N.A. Acharya as the President of the Industrial Court at Ahmedabad. The Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court had quashed the Notification and directed a fresh appointment process. The Supreme Court granted leave and made the interim order absolute. Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 10(2) and Section 10(4) of the B.I.R. Act The Full Bench of the High Court interpreted Section 10(2) of the B.I.R. Act to mean that only a Member of the Industrial Court could be appointed as its President. The Supreme Court, however, held that Section 10(2) does not specify that the President must be appointed from among the current Members of the Industrial Court. The Court clarified that the President could also be directly appointed from sitting or retired High Court Judges or other eligible judicial officers. Issue 3: Eligibility Criteria for Appointment The High Court had held that the appointment of Shri N.A. Acharya was invalid as he was not a Member of the Industrial Court and did not meet the eligibility criteria under Section 10(4) of the B.I.R. Act. The Supreme Court found that Shri N.A. Acharya fulfilled the eligibility criteria as he had completed ten years of service in the judiciary, including practice at the Bar. The Court also noted that the Draft Recruitment Rules allowed for nomination, and Shri N.A. Acharya met these requirements. Issue 4: Compliance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution The High Court had found the appointment process violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as it excluded eligible Members of the Industrial Court from consideration. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the appointment process was transparent and in accordance with the Draft Recruitment Rules. The Court held that the High Court had acted within its rights and in due discharge of its constitutional duty. Issue 5: Validity of the Appointment Process The Supreme Court found no illegality or arbitrariness in the decision to recommend Shri N.A. Acharya for the post of President, Industrial Court. The Court noted that the High Court had considered all aspects and followed a transparent process. The appointment was made based on the recommendation of the High Court and in accordance with the Draft Recruitment Rules. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court. The Court upheld the appointment of Shri N.A. Acharya as the President of the Industrial Court, finding it in compliance with the B.I.R. Act and the Constitution of India. There was no order as to costs.
|
