HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND ANR. versus GUJARAT KISHAN MAZDOOR PANCHAYAT AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 799 · Decided: 10-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

_.J 
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND ANR. 
v. 
GUJARAT KISHAN MAZDOOR PANCHAYAT AND ORS. 
MARCH l 0, 2003 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Bombay °Industrial Relations Act, 1946-Section 10(2) and (4)-
Appointment-Post of President of Court of Industrial Arbitration-Eligibility 
criteria for the appointment determined by High Court and the same C 
incorporated in Draft Recruitment Rules-Recommendation by administrative 
side of High Court for appointment by nomination from judicial service-
Appointment done by State Government challenged-High Court held the 
appointment illegal as in view of Section I 0(2) being a member of the Court 
was condition precedent for being appointed to the post of President-On D 
appeal, held: Appointment is valid and the same is not in breach of Section 
I 0(2) of the Act and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution-Appointee is 
eligible for the post-Section I 0(2) deals with composition of Industrial Court 
and not on mode of appointment-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14 
and 16-Handbook of Guidelines on Recruitment Rules of Officers under 
Labour and Employment Department, Government of Gujarat-Item 34. 
E 
Preparation of recruitment rules for the post of President of the 
Court of Industrial Arbitration was under consideration by High Court 
and as the post of President of Industrial Court was to fall vacant since 
the retirement of its previous President, State Government sent a 
representation to the High Court for consideration as to by which m·ode, F 
the post of the President was to be filled up. The matter was placed 
before Standing Committee of High Court which decided that the post 
was to be filled by nomination under Rule 2(b) of the proposed rules, as 
none of the then existing members of the Industrial Court were eligible 
to be appointed to the post by promotion. Nine Judicial Officers expressed G 
their willingness for being considered for the post. The Standing 
Committee after considering the recruitment rules particularly the 
provisions regarding eligibility, experience and age of superannuation 
etc. for the post recommended the name of one of the judicial officers to 
the State Government for appointment by nomination for the post. H 
799 
800 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003] 2 S.C.R. 
A Representation against the recommendation was also heard. Senior most 
-~ 
member of the Industrial court also expressed his unwillingness to be 
appointed as President. State Government appointed the appointee to the 
post by a notification. Writ petitions were filed challenging the 
appointment. It was alleged that the appointment was illegal because in 
B view of scheme of Section 10(2) of Bombay Industrial Act, 1949 only a 
member of Industrial Court could be appointed as its President; and that 
even if it is assumed that appointment on the post could be made by 
nomination, as per the old recruitment rules and new draft rules, the 
appointee in the present case did not possess adequate qualification. 
Appellant-High Court countered the allegation contending that High Court 
C had recommended the name of the appointee under Rule 2(b) of Draft 
Recruitment Rules and the appointee also fulfilled the criteria prescribed 
--... 
as per old rules. Full Bench of the High Court held that being a member 
of the Industrial Court is a prerequisite and condition precedent for 
being the President of the Court; that the only relevant provision for 
D recruitment to the post of President is Section IO of the Act, hence there 
was no lawful justification for keeping the members of the Industrial 
Court out of consideration on the basis of the proposed Draft Rules. 
In appeal to this Court appellants contended that Section 10(4) of 
the Act provides for eligibility criteria and the same is fulfilled by the 
E appointee; and that High Court proceeded on an erroneous footing that 
the Act did not contemplate the appointment by direct recruitment and 
only members of the Industrial Court formed the zone of consideration 
for appointment to the post of President. 
Respondent contended that the plain and natural meaning of Section 
F 10(2) of the Act is capable of only one construction i.e. only members of 
the Industrial Court could become its President; th.at the appointee does 
not fulfil any of the three eligibility conditions mentioned in Section I 0( 4) 
of the Act; that even assuming that the appointment to the post of 
President could be made through nominat

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.