1968 (4) TMI 83 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of Mr. Deb's appointment as the presiding officer of the Second Labour Court.
2. Whether Mr. Deb held a "judicial office" for not less than seven years as required under Section 7(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
3. Applicability of Section 9 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding the finality of appointments.
4. Validity of the award made by Mr. Deb.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Mr. Deb's Appointment:
The primary issue was whether Mr. Deb was legally appointed as the presiding officer of the Second Labour Court. The appellant company challenged his appointment on the grounds that it violated Section 7(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which requires the presiding officer to have held a judicial office in India for not less than seven years. The High Court initially quashed the award made by Mr. Deb, but upon appeal, the decision was reversed, and the matter was referred back for further consideration.

2. Whether Mr. Deb Held a "Judicial Office" for Not Less than Seven Years:
The court examined whether Mr. Deb's previous roles qualified as holding a "judicial office." Mr. Deb had a career as a Sub-Deputy Collector and Circle Officer, and later as a magistrate with varying powers. The court noted that the term "judicial office" was not defined in the Act, leading to differing interpretations. The court ultimately agreed with the view that a magistrate holds a judicial office, as magistrates perform judicial functions and hold a position with attached duties, thus fulfilling the requirement under Section 7(3)(d).

3. Applicability of Section 9 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
Section 9 of the Act states that the appointment of any person as the presiding officer of a Labour Court shall not be called into question in any manner. The court emphasized that even if there was some doubt about Mr. Deb's qualifications, the intent of the legislature was to uphold such appointments unless there was a clear usurpation of the law. The court held that the provisions of Section 9 are not absolute but should be given significant weight in unclear cases.

4. Validity of the Award Made by Mr. Deb:
The court concluded that since Mr. Deb was deemed to hold a judicial office, his appointment was valid, and thus, the award made by him could not be questioned. The court also noted that the functions of a Labour Court are of great public importance and quasi-civil in nature, and persons with sufficient judicial experience are more suitable for such roles.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment under appeal was upheld. The court held that Mr. Deb was competent to exercise jurisdiction, and his appointment could not be called into question. The provisions of Section 9 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, were given significant weight, and the court expressed no opinion on the de facto doctrine due to the resolution of the primary issue. The appeal was dismissed with costs.