4435 5285/ to the three Industrial Tribunals who were granted selection grade.
The Government of Kerala accepted the above recommendations and revised the pay scales of Industrial Tribunals and District and Sessions Judges as recommended by the Pay Commission with effect from 1.7.1988.
1 to 3 and Mr. C.N. Sreekumar, appearing for C.N. Sasidharan and K. Kanakachandran, who have filed A. No.
The claim of the respondents in the writ petition was that prior to the year 1998, the State Government had granted to them pay scales at par with the District Judges.
20490 of 1999 in the High Court seeking direction to the State Government to grant interim relief at par with the District Judges.
The said representation was decided and rejected vide order dated 15.5.1999.
The respondents submitted a representation to the State Government seeking extension of the benefit of interim relief in terms of order vide G.O. dated 30.5.1998 granting interim relief at the rate of 35 of pay as on 1.7.1996 to the members of the Subordinate Judiciary in the State.
The respondents were denied the said benefits of the scales of pay and, accordingly, they submitted representation on 7.1.2002 to the Secretary to the Government, Labour and Rehabilitation Department requesting for the grant of same scales of pay as that of the District Judges in the State.
They companytinued to work as such.
Indisputably, prior to 1.7.1988 the pay scale of the Presiding Officers of the Industrial Tribunals and District Judges was Rs.2600 3800/ .
In the year 1993, respondent Nos.
The Labour Courts and the Industrial Tribunals have been companystituted in the State of Kerala under Sections 7 and 7A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the ID Act, 1947 .
By the impugned order, while allowing the writ petition of the respondents herein, directions have been issued that order at Exhibit P8 shall be modified so as to treat the writ petitioners at par with the District Judges in the matter of time scale as well as the selection grade and the needful should be done within three months from the date of the certified companyy of the judgment.
600/93/Fin.
Being aggrieved by this judgment and order, the appellant State of Maharashtra preferred an appeal before Division Bench of the High Court which appeal has been dismissed.
The Commission recommended the same scale of pay to the District Judges, Sessions Judges and selection grade District Judges.
5100 5700/ .
The substituted clause a in sub Section 3 reads as under He is or has been a Judicial Officer number below the rank of a District Judge, or is qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court or Thus, in the State of Kerala, in terms of the above substituted clause a in sub Section 3 of Section 7A of the ID Act, 1947, a judicial officer number below the rank of District Judge is qualified to be appointed as Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal.
28 of 1961, in its application to the State of Kerala under sub Section 3 of Section 7A of the ID Act, 1947 for Clause a the following clause has been substituted.
The said writ petition was allowed, with a direction to the State Government to issue necessary orders in this regard by extending the benefit of interim relief at the rate of 35 basic pay D.A. with effect from 1.1.1996 as directed in Exhibit P4 to the Judicial Officers.
Thus the State of Maharashtra filed an appeal before this Court.
It was the case of the respondents before the High Court that the State Government on 18.4.2000 in pursuance of the directions of the High Court sanctioned interim relief to the Presiding Officers of the Industrial Tribunals as well.
The Commission recommended revised scale of Rs.
Thus, the Presiding Officers of the Industrial Tribunals are number entitled to the same scales of pay as recommended by the National Judicial Pay Commission Shetty Commission for the members of the Higher Judiciary.
Accordingly, National Judicial Pay Commission Shetty Commission recommended pay revision to the District Judges and other members of the Subordinate Judiciary in the year 1998.
On 25.11.1999, the respondents filed O.P. No.
Thus, they sought the intervention of the High Court to quash order Exhibit P8 of the State Government and further direction to grant same scale of pay as has been sanctioned in the case of District Judges.
The writ petition was companytested by the State.
A person shall number 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 aa he has, for a period of number less than three yeas, been a District Judge or an Additional Judge b c he has for number less than five years been a presiding officer of a Labour Court, companystituted under any law for the time being in force d he holds a degree in law of a University established by law in any part of India and is holding or has held an office number lower in rank than that of Assistant Commissioner of Labour under the State Government for number les than ten years.
Indisputably, the Government of India based on the recommendations of this Court by resolution dated 21.3.1994 companystituted the First National Judicial Pay Commission to go into the question of the pay scales and to recommend uniform scale of pay for the Subordinate Judiciary in the States and Union Territories.
3700 4200/ .
01.03.1992.
In the above pay revision order in respect of District Judges and members of Subordinate Judiciary, it was numbered that revised scale will be separately ordered.
In the year, 1993, Government issued G.O. P No.
231/2001/Home dated 12.12.2001 decided to grant the scales of pay to the members of Subordinate Judiciary as recommended by the National Judicial Commission Shetty Commission .
However, when Judicial Officers were granted benefit of revision of pay scales in December, 2001 with retrospective effect from March, 1996, similar benefit was denied to them.
A Tribunal shall companysist of one person only to be appointed by the appropriate Government.
3 was selected and appointed as Presiding Officer in the year 1996 in the State of Kerala.
3175 4605/ to the Industrial Tribunals Entry Cadre and Rs.
3700 4200/ .
In the companynter affidavit filed on its behalf by the Under Secretary, Department of Finance, it was inter alia stated that in the State of Kerala while the Presiding Officers of the Labour Court are appointed under the provisions of Article 234 of the Constitution of India, the Presiding Officers of Industrial Tribunals are number so appointed under Article 234 of the Constitution of India.
The District Judges were granted selection grade in the scale of Rs.
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. This appeal by the State of Kerala, arises out of the judgment and order dated 5th December, 2003, passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in O.P. No, 8947/03 M .
1 and 2 were selected and appointed as Presiding Officers of the Industrial Tribunals whereas respondent No.
On 12.1.2001, Government of Kerala vide G.O. MS No.
dated 08.12.1993 revising the pay scales of State Government employees w.e.f.
By the said order, the scale of pay of Industrial Tribunals were revised to Rs.
All the three Industrial Tribunals Services at that time were also placed in the selection grade of Rs.
Facts, in brief leading to the filing of the present appeal are as follows The respondents herein were the members of the Bar.
Government of Kerala appointed Pay Commission chaired by Justice T.Chandrashekhara Menon to make recommendations in the matter of revision of pay scales in the case of Government employees.
A companyy of the order dated 4.2.2003 by which revision of pay was allowed to the District Judges was placed on the record of the High Court as Exhibit P8.
