# STATE OF ASSAM v. HORIZON UNION & ANR

- **Citation:** [1967] 1 S.C.R. 484
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1966-09-23
- **Case number:** Civil "Rule No. 7 of 1966
- **Bench:** K. Subba Rao C. J, M. Hidayatijllah, S. M. Sikri, R. S. B Bachawat, Raghubar Dayal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-assam-v-horizon-union-anr-3867
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Industrial Disputes Act (14 o/ 1947), n. 7.4(3) (aa), 7.4(3) (b)-
Addi1ional Dis1ric1 Judge, officia1lng as Registrar, High Court, i/ quaJ/.
fied-Labour Court if J'ribunal withins. 7A(3)(b).
The High Court quashed the appointment of the second respondent
as Presiding Officer of an Industrial Tribunal on the ground that ho wu
not an
Additional District
Judge
for
three
years as required
by
s. 7A(3)(aa) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
In appeal to this
Court,
the appellant-State contended that though the respondent did not work as
Additional District Judge for the full period of three years be satisfied
the requirement of the section, since, while officiating as Registrar of the
High Court he held the office of an Additional District Judge.
HELD : The second respondent was duly
qualified for appointment
under s. 7A(3) (aa) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
To satisfy the ,....
quirements of the section it was not necessary that the penon must have
actually worked as an Additional District Judge for that period. [487 Bl
Section 7A(3) (aa) inserted by the Centrai Act prevails over cl. (aa)
of s. 7A(3) of the Assam Amendment to the Industrial Disputes Act
and it docs not require any consultation with the High Court regarding
appointment to a Tribunal. [487 D-E)
Though the respondent was the Presiding Officer of a Labour Court
be was not qualified otherwise for appointment under s. 7A(3), because
a Labour Court is not a Tribunal withm the meaning of s. 7A(3)(b) read
withs. 2(r). [488 Bl
c
D
E
CIVIL APPELLATE
Ju.RISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1565 of
F
1966.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
June 2, 1966 of the Assam and Nagaland High Court at Gauhati in
Civil "Rule No. 7 of 1966.
M. C. Seta/vad and NaUJti/ LAI, for the appellant.
D. Goburdhan, for respondent No. I.
S. N. Prasad, for respondent No. 2.

## Text

STATE OF ASSAM
v.
HORIZON UNION & ANR
September 23, 1966
A
(K. SUBBA RAO C. J., M. HIDAYATIJLLAH, S. M. SIKRI, R. S.
B
BACHAWAT AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act (14 o/ 1947), n. 7.4(3) (aa), 7.4(3) (b)-
Addi1ional Dis1ric1 Judge, officia1lng as Registrar, High Court, i/ quaJ/.
fied-Labour Court if J'ribunal withins. 7A(3)(b).
The High Court quashed the appointment of the second respondent
as Presiding Officer of an Industrial Tribunal on the ground that ho wu
not an
Additional District
Judge
for
three
years as required
by
s. 7A(3)(aa) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
In appeal to this
Court,
the appellant-State contended that though the respondent did not work as
Additional District Judge for the full period of three years be satisfied
the requirement of the section, since, while officiating as Registrar of the
High Court he held the office of an Additional District Judge.
HELD : The second respondent was duly
qualified for appointment
under s. 7A(3) (aa) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
To satisfy the ,....
quirements of the section it was not necessary that the penon must have
actually worked as an Additional District Judge for that period. [487 Bl
Section 7A(3) (aa) inserted by the Centrai Act prevails over cl. (aa)
of s. 7A(3) of the Assam Amendment to the Industrial Disputes Act
and it docs not require any consultation with the High Court regarding
appointment to a Tribunal. [487 D-E)
Though the respondent was the Presiding Officer of a Labour Court
be was not qualified otherwise for appointment under s. 7A(3), because
a Labour Court is not a Tribunal withm the meaning of s. 7A(3)(b) read
withs. 2(r). [488 Bl
c
D
E
CIVIL APPELLATE
Ju.RISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1565 of
F
1966.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
June 2, 1966 of the Assam and Nagaland High Court at Gauhati in
Civil "Rule No. 7 of 1966.
M. C. Seta/vad and NaUJti/ LAI, for the appellant.
D. Goburdhan, for respondent No. I.
S. N. Prasad, for respondent No. 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Bachawat, J. This a·ppeal by special leave raises the question
whether respondent No. 2, Shri B. C. Dutta was qualified for appointment as the Presiding Officer of an Industrial Tribunal under
s. 7A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 7A inserted
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
ASSAM v. HORIZON UNION (Bachawat, !.)
485
in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by Act No. 36 of 1956 with
effect from March 10, 1957 read as follows :-
"7 A (!) The appropriate Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more
Industrial Tribunals for the adjudication of industrial
disputes relating to any matter, whether specified in the
Second Schedule or the Third Schedule.
(2) A Tribunal shall consist of . one person only
to be appointed by the appropriate Government.
(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment
as the presiding officer of a Tribunal unless-
(a) he is, or has been a judge of a High Court; or
(b) he has held the office of chairman or any other
member of the Labour Appellate Tri'mnal 'constituted
under the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act,
1950, or of any Tribunal, for a period o( not less than
two years."
Assam Act No. 8 of 1952 which received the assent of the
President on April 25, 1962 inserted in s. 7A(3) after cl. (a), the
following clause :-
"(aa) lie has worked as a Districi judge or as an
Additional District judge or as both for a total period
of not less than three years or is qualified for appointment as a judge of a High Court;
Provided that the appointment to a Tribunal of any
person qualified under this clause shall not be made
without consultation with the Assam High Court; or".
In 1964, the Parli1m1ent passed the Jridustrial Disputes (Amend
ment) Act (Nq. 36 of 1964). This-amending Act inserted in s. 7 A(3
after ,cl. (a) the following Clause ;
"(aa) he has, for a
period of not less than three
years, been a District judge or an Additional District
judge; or".
By an order of the State Government dated December 7,
1965, Shri Dutta was appointed the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, Assam, Gauhati. Respondent No. I filed a writ
petition in the Assam High Court challenging this appointment.
The High Court quashed the appointment on the ground that
Shri .Dutta lacked the qualification required by s. 7A(3) .. Counsel
for the State of Assam submitted that Shri Dutta had been an
Additional District Judge for over three years, and was, therefore,
486
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1961) l S.C.R.
~ualified for appointment. This submission involves conside- A
ration of the question whether Shri Dutta, while working as Registrar of the Assam High Court, held the office of an Additional
District Judge.
The Assam Judicial Service (Senior) Rules, 1952 show that
the strength of the Assam Judicial Service (Senior) and of each 8
kind of post therein is as follows
"Senior Grade I
Registrar
District Judges
Senior Grade II.
Additional District Judges
1
3
3."
The Governor has power to increase the cadre by the creation of additional permanent or temporary posts. The
post
of Registrar is filled up by the Chief Justice preferably from Grade I
or Grade II of the Service. Other posts in the cadre are filled up
c
by the Governor in consultation with the High Court.
D
On August 16, 1954, Shri Dutta, then Officiating Subordinate
and Assistant Sessions Judge, was appointed a temporary Additional District & Sessions Judge. While he was officiating as an
Additional District Judge, his services were lent by the State Government to the High Court, he was temporarily promoted to
Senior Grade I and on March 8, 1957 was appointed by the Chief E
Justice as the Registrar of the Assam High Court. It is not disputed that between August 16, 1954 and March 8, 1957 Shri Dutta
held the office of an Additional District Judge. The record shows
that until April 24, 1958 the Government continued to retain Shri
Dutta in his office of Additional District Judge. On this footing,
the Government passed an order on March 26, 1958, whereby JI
Shri Dutta, then Officiating Registrar of the High Court, was
confirmed in Senior Grade. II with effect from
February 16,
1957.
On April, 24, 1958, he was confirmed in Senior Grade I with
effect froin May 2, 1957. On June 30, 1959, he retired from the
office of the Registrar. The High Court was right in saying that G
under the Assam Judicial Service (Senior) Rules, 1952 the post
of the Registrar was separate from that of the District Judge and
Shri Dutta never held the office of the District Judge. But the
High Court omitted to consider whether he continued to hold
the office of an Additional District Judge after March 8, 1957.
We are satisfied that during the period from March 8, 1957 ue H
to April 24, 1958, Shri Dutta, while officiating as a Registrar
of the High Court, continued to hold the office of an Additional
District Judge. The High Court was in error in thinking that in
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
ASSAM v. HORIZON UNION (Bachawat, J.)
487
order to satisfy .the conditions of s. 7 A(3)(aa), Shri Dutta should
have. actually worked as an M<iitional District Judge for a period
of not less than three years. For over three years Shri Dutta
held the post of an Additional District Judge. Consequently,
during this period he had been an Additional District Judge as
required bys. 7A(3)(aa). To satisfy the requirements ofs. 7A(3)(aa)
it was not necessary that he must have actually worked as an Additional District Judge for this period.
The appointment of Shri Dutta as the Presiding Officer of
the Industrial Tribunal was made without consultation with the
High Court. Respondent No. 1 submitted that, consequently;
there was no compliance with the proviso to s. 7A(3)(aa) inserted
by Assam. Act No. 8 of 1962. This contention has no force. In
respect of the subject-matter of the .appointment of a person who
has for a period of not less than three years been a District Judge
or an Additional District Judge, cl. (aa) inserted by Central Act
No. 36 of 1964 impliedly repealed cl. (aa) inserted by the Assam
Act. Clause (aa) inserted by the Central Act is intended to be
an exhaustive code in respect of this subject-matter. The Central.
Act now occupies this field. The provisions of cl. (aa) inserted
by the Assam Act on this subject are repugnant to cl. (aa) inserted
by the Central Act and by Art. 254 of the Constitution, to the extent of this repugnancy, is void. Clause (aa) of s. 7A(3) inserted
by the Central Act does not require any consultation with the
High Court ..
It follows that Shri Dutta was duly qualified for appointment under s. 7 A(3)(aa), and the order of the High Court must be
set aside.
We may add that in respect of the subject of appointment of
a person who is qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High
Court, clause (aa) inserted by Assam Act No. 8 of .1962 including
its proviso continues to be in force.
But counsel for the State of
Assam did not seek to justify the appointment of Shri Dutta under
cl. ( aa) inserted by the Assam Act.
It appears that before December 7, 1965, Shri Dutta had
been the Presiding Officer of a Labour Court for over two years.
Counsel for Shri Dutta submitted that he, therefore, held the office
of a member of a Tribunal and was qualified for appointment undec
s. 7A(3)(b), There is no force in thL> contention. Section. 2(r)
defines 'Tribunal'. It reads :
"Tribunal" ·means an Industrial Tribunal c_onstitutcd
under section 7A and includes an Industrial Tribunal constituted before the lOtli: day of March,, 1957
under this Act."
M16Sup. C. 1./66-3
488
SUPllEMB COUJlT llBPOllTS
(1967] I S.C.R.
Obviously, the first part of the definition in s. 2(r) cannot be
A
fitted in s. 7A(3)(b). The expression 'Tribunal' ins. 7A(3)(b),
therefore, means "an Industrial Tribunal constituted before the
10th day of March, 1957 under this Act." Thus, a person who
held the office of the Chairman or any other member of an Industrial Tribunal constituted under s. 7 as ·it stood before March 10,
I 957 is qualified for appointment under s. 7 A(3)(b ), though he
B
may not be qualified otherwise for appointment under s. 7 A(3).
But a Labour Court is not a Tribunal within the meaning of s. 7 A(3)
(b) read with ~. 2(r). Shri Dutta was, therefore, not qualified for
appointment under s.7A(3)(b).
In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs against respondent No. I, the order of the High Court is set aside, and the
C
writ petition is dismissed.
Y.P.
Appeal allowed.