Hence, the present appeal has been filed before us.
Being aggrieved b y this judgment and order, the appellant State of Maharashtra preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court which appeal has been dismissed.
There was also a prayer in the writ petition for a direction to the State of Maharashtra to companyply with the provisions of Article 235 of the Constitution in appointing judge of the Labour Court.
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J. The first respondent, Labour Law Practitioners Association is an association of Member 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 Judge of the Labour Court at Pune and Sholapur under a Notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra dated 8.3.1979.
They also prayed that the provisions of the amended Section 9 of the Bombay Industrial Disputes Act in so far as these provisions authorised the appointment of Assistant Commissioners of Labour as Judge of the Labour Court, were void and illegal and companytrary to Article 234 of the Constitution.
