Statutory qualification for Industrial Disputes appointments upheld where office was held throughout despite other assigned duties.

A person satisfies the qualification of having been a District Judge or Additional District Judge for the prescribed three-year period under section 7A(3)(aa) if he continued to hold that office, even while performing duties as Registrar of the High Court; actual performance of judicial work throughout the period is not required. The Central amendment of 1964 was treated as an exhaustive code for appointments in that category, so the Assam proviso requiring consultation with the High Court was repugnant and inoperative under Article 254. A Labour Court was not a "Tribunal" within section 7A(3)(b), so service as its Presiding Officer did not satisfy that qualification.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a person who continued to hold the office of an Additional District Judge while functioning as Registrar of the High Court satisfied the qualification in section 7A(3)(aa) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; (ii) whether the proviso introduced by the Assam amendment requiring consultation with the High Court continued to apply after the Central amendment of 1964; and (iii) whether a Labour Court was a "Tribunal" for the purpose of section 7A(3)(b).

Issue (i): whether a person who continued to hold the office of an Additional District Judge while functioning as Registrar of the High Court satisfied the qualification in section 7A(3)(aa) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Analysis: The qualification in section 7A(3)(aa) required that the person have been a District Judge or an Additional District Judge for a period of not less than three years. The decisive question was whether actual work in that post for the whole period was necessary. On the facts, the person had held the post of Additional District Judge for more than three years, and the fact that he was functioning as Registrar did not show that he had ceased to hold that office.

Conclusion: The qualification was satisfied, and actual work as Additional District Judge for the entire period was not necessary.

Issue (ii): whether the proviso introduced by the Assam amendment requiring consultation with the High Court continued to apply after the Central amendment of 1964.

Analysis: The Central amendment substituted a later clause (aa) dealing with appointments of persons who had been District Judges or Additional District Judges for the prescribed period. That provision was treated as an exhaustive code on that subject and as occupying the field. To the extent the State amendment imposed a different requirement of consultation with the High Court for the same category, it was repugnant and void under Article 254 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The consultation proviso did not apply to appointments governed by the Central amendment.

Issue (iii): whether a Labour Court was a "Tribunal" for the purpose of section 7A(3)(b).

Analysis: The definition of "Tribunal" in section 2(r) could not be read into section 7A(3)(b) in its entirety. In context, that clause referred to an Industrial Tribunal constituted before 10 March 1957. A Labour Court was not such a Tribunal, and service as Presiding Officer of a Labour Court did not satisfy the clause.

Conclusion: The respondent was not qualified under section 7A(3)(b).

Final Conclusion: The appointment was upheld as valid under section 7A(3)(aa), the High Court's contrary view was reversed, and the writ challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A person satisfies the statutory qualification of having been a District Judge or Additional District Judge for the prescribed period if he continued to hold that office for that period, even while performing other assigned duties, and a later Central amendment occupying the field prevails over a repugnant State amendment under Article 254 of the Constitution of India.

---