1966 (9) TMI 154 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Qualification of respondent for appointment as Presiding Officer of an Industrial Tribunal under s. 7A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Interpretation of the qualifications required under s. 7A(3) for the appointment of a Presiding Officer.
3. Repeal and effect of conflicting clauses inserted by different Acts regarding qualifications for appointment.
4. Qualification of respondent under s. 7A(3)(b) based on prior experience as a Presiding Officer of a Labour Court.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed the issue of whether the respondent was qualified for the appointment as the Presiding Officer of an Industrial Tribunal under s. 7A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent's appointment was challenged in the High Court on the grounds of lacking the required qualifications as per the Act.

2. The Court analyzed the qualifications specified under s. 7A(3) for the appointment of a Presiding Officer, which included being a judge of a High Court, holding office in a Labour Appellate Tribunal for a minimum period, or being a District Judge for a specified duration. The interpretation of the qualifications was crucial in determining the eligibility of the respondent for the position.

3. The judgment delved into the conflicting clauses inserted by different Acts regarding the qualifications for appointment. It discussed the repeal and effect of these conflicting clauses, emphasizing that the Central Act's clause regarding the appointment of a District Judge or Additional District Judge for a specific period was exhaustive and overrode the clause inserted by the Assam Act.

4. Lastly, the Court examined the respondent's qualification under s. 7A(3)(b) based on his prior experience as the Presiding Officer of a Labour Court for over two years. The judgment clarified that a Labour Court did not fall under the definition of a Tribunal as per the Act, rendering the respondent ineligible for appointment under this provision.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the writ petition, affirming the respondent's qualification for the appointment as the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal under s. 7A(3)(aa) while rejecting the claim of qualification under s. 7A(3)(b) based on prior experience as a Labour Court Presiding Officer.