Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)The State Of Maharashtra vs Labour Law Practitioners' Association ... on 11 February, 1998
After
hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through
the materials on record we find that in the case of the State of
Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners' Association and others
(supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the first
respondent before the said court was Labour Law Practitioners'
Association, an association of members practising in the Industrial
and Labour Courts in the State of Maharashtra. The Association filed
a writ petition before the High Court challenging the appointment of
respondents 2 and 3 who were Assistant Commissioners of Labour, as
Judges of the Labour Court at Pune and Sholapur under a Notification
issued by the Government of Maharashtra dated March 8, 1979. They
also prayed that the provisions of the amended Section 9 of the
Bombay Industrial Relations Act and the amended Section 7 of the
Industrial Disputes Act in so far as these provisions authorised the
appointment of Assistant Commissioners of Labour as Judges of the
Labour Court, were void and illegal and contrary to Article 234 of
the Constitution. There was also a prayer in the writ-petition for a
direction to the State of Maharashtra to comply with the provisions
of Article 234 of the Constitution in appointing judges of the
Labour Court.
Article 233 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
State Of Kerala vs B. Renjit Kumar & Ors on 5 June, 2008
If
we apply the above principles to the facts of the present case, we
find that non-judicial staffs of the District Courts and those of the
Labour and Industrial Court were placed on the same podium before the
recommendation of the Justice Shetty Commission by which special
scale of pay has been recommended for the non-judicial staffs of the
District Courts. The State Government proposes to deny such benefit
to the non-judicial staffs of the labour and industrial court on the
same ground on which the Government of Kerala refused similar benefit
to the presiding officers of those courts and tribunals, i.e. that
those employees were not appointed in the legal department of the
State but in a different department. In this case, similar to the one
mentioned
above, these employees are not outside the ambit of the Constitution
as the protection of rules framed under Article 309 as also under
Article 311 is available to them. The State Government had granted
the pay scale to these employees at par with those of the legal
department working in the subordinate courts prior to the
recommendation of the Justice Shetty commission. Thus, for the
selfsame reason disclosed by the Apex Court in the above case of
State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar and Ors (supra), the same scale
of pay enjoyed by the non-judicial staffs of the District Court
should be made available to the members of the petitioner's
association as the presiding officers of the labour courts and
tribunals were granted at par with those of the District Judges.