H.K. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India & Ors.
1999 Latest Caselaw 550 Del

ORDER

C.W. No. 4819/98.

1. This Petition seeks to challenge two Notifications both dated 8th August, 1997. By these Notifications, certain posts in Labour Courts and in Industrial Tribunals have been declared to be "cadre posts" of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service. The challenge is on the ground that these Notifications violate the rights of persons who could otherwise have been appointed as Presiding Officers of the Labour Court and Industrial Courts. It is submitted that now only persons who are Member of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service would become eligible to be appointed to these posts.

2. Ms. Ahlawat, on behalf of the Delhi Administration, makes a statement that persons who would otherwise have been eligible to be appointed under Section 7 and 7(A) will still continue to be eligible for appointment to these posts. In view of this statement, this challenge no longer survives. Even otherwise, it is clear that the Notification does not amend Sections 7 and 7(A). Thus even though these are made cadre posts, they are even now to be filled in from those mentioned in Sections 7 and 7(A). This Notification had to be issued because of circumstances mentioned in Para 3 of counteraffidavit of Respondents 3, 4 and 5 darted 19th July, 1999.

3. It is next submitted that under Section 7, the officers can only adjudicate in respect of labour disputes or in respect of any matters specified in the second Schedule to the Act. It is submitted that on certain occasions, these Officers are made to do other work like hearing bail applications, etc. It is submitted that there should be a direction that no other work should be taken from these Officers.

4. The notifications in question themselves clarify, under clauses 3 and 4, that the work which is to be done by these Officers is only adjudication of disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act and any other matter specified under the second Schedule. The instances which have been brought to our notice are only those when these Officers who would otherwise have been on vacasion. At such time they were asked to perform other judicial work. During that period, these Officers would in any case have not performed the functions under these Acts. In these days of large volume of work and large delay, it is advisable that judicial work be got done from Officers who otherwise would not be doing any judicial work. We, therefore, see no substance in this submission. This prayer, therefore, stands rejected.

The Petition stands disposed of, accordingly.