STATESMAN (PRIVATE) LTD. versus H. R. DEB & ORS.

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 614 · Decided: 02-04-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATESMAN (PRIVATE) LTD. 
v. 
H. R. DEB & ORS. 
April 2, 1968 
[M. H!DAYATULLAH, C.J., V. RAMASWAMI, C, A. VA!DIALINGAM, 
.. 
K. S. HEGf>E AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J 
Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), ss. 7(3)(d) and 2•"11ldicial 
Of!ic1", if inc/udea office of Magistrate-Writ of Quo Warranto-/n.ru• 
ance. 
Section 7(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act provides that no person 
shall be qualified for appointment as the presiding officer. of a l.abour 
Court, unless he has held any judicial office for not less than seven years. 
Since 1940 the first respondent held the Office of Sub-Deputy Collector 
and was vested with Magisterial powers. In 1959 he was appointed the 
presiding officer of a Labour Court and he gave an award aaainst the 
appellant. TM appellant questioned the appointment on the ground that 
the first respondent had not held 'judicial office' for 7 yeal'S prior to his 
appointment. 
HELD : A Magistrate holds a judicial office. 
That his duties are 
partly judicial and partly other does not in any way del!racl from the 
position that while acting as a Magistrate he is a judicial officer. An 
office means no more than a position to which certain duties are attached. 
A public office is one which entitles a man to act in the affairs of others 
without their appointment or permission. The office of a Magistrate is a 
correct expl'css1on in English and in law. 
The word 'office' has been 
applied to Magistrates. The Judicial Officers Protection Act. is illlended 
to prouict not Civil Judges alone hut also Magistrate. (620 p:621 CJ, 
The functions of a Labour Court are of great public importance and 
quasi civil in nature. 
Men of. experience on the civil side of the law 
are more suitable than Magistrates. 
Persons employed on multifarious 
duties and in addition performing some judicial functions may not truly 
answer the requirement of s. 7. 
For it cannot ·be denied thac the ex-
press.ion "holding a judicial office" signifies more than discharge of judi· 
cial functions while holding some other office. 
The phrase postulalies 
that there is an office and that office is prilllMily judicial. In this case the 
distinction was unsubstantial because the Magistrate was holding a fixed 
position for nineteen years and performing functions primarily Of judicial 
character. [622 B-DJ. 
Even if there be some doubt that is to be resolved in favour of up-
holding the appointment on the ground that the legislature itself by s. 9 
contemplatea that such appointments should not be called into queation. 
Although the provisions of s, 9 cannot shut out an inquiry (if there is 
a clear usurpation) for purposes of a writ of quo warranto at least in an 
unclear case the intent of the le)lislature is entitled to great weight The 
High C.mrt in a quo warranto proceeding should be slow to pronounce 
upon the matter unless there is a 
clear 
infringement of 
the law. 
(621 D-FJ. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil APPCal No. 647 of 
1967. 
c 
D 
' 
G 
H 
A 
STATESMAN LTD. v. H. R. DEB (flidayatullah, C.J.) 
615 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 5, 1967 
of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Order 
No. 134 of 1966. 
Sachin Chaudhuri, !. K. Glzoslz and D. N. Gupta, for the 
appellant. 
B 
S. C. Mazumilar and A. K. Mitter, for respondent No. 2. 
B. Sen, G. S. Chatterjee for P. K. Bose, for respondent No. 3. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullah, C.J. This appeal on certificate arises from a 
C 
petition under Art, 226 of the Constitution of India filed in the 
High Court at Calcutta by the appellant, the Statesman Private 
Ltd. This company prints 'and publishes daily and weekly news-
papers and undertakes general printing work at Calcutta. 
By 
that writ petition the Company asked for a writ of certiorari 
against the Second Labour Court, West Bengal with a view to· 
quashing an award, 21 September 1960, reinstating one Sheikh 
D 
Kaloo, one of its employees. The Company had dismissed the 
said Kaloo after holding an inquiry but the Second Labour Court 
ordered his reinstatement with half wages for the period of his 
'forced unemploymenf. 
The writ petition was heard by B. N. 
Banerjee J. and by his order, 15 February, 1962, the petition 
was granted and the order of the Tribunal was quashed. 
The 
E 
workmen who had sponsored the case of Kaloo appealed in the 
High Court. During the course of the appeal an application was 
filed by the Company stating that the Tribunal presided
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.