https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181599 Section 10(2) read with Section 10(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 was construed purposively to mean that the President of the Industrial Court need not first be appointed from among existing Members. The Court held that the provision fixes the Court's composition and eligibility for membership, but does not restrict the mode of filling the presidential office, so direct nomination of a duly qualified person was not excluded. It also held that the appointment of a judicial officer by nomination was not arbitrary or discriminatory, because the process involved High Court consideration, eligibility assessment, and consultation, and therefore did not violate Articles 14 or 16. en-us Mon, 10 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Jan 2026 12:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181599 Section 10(2) read with Section 10(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 was construed purposively to mean that the President of the Industrial Court need not first be appointed from among existing Members. The Court held that the provision fixes the Court's composition and eligibility for membership, but does not restrict the mode of filling the presidential office, so direct nomination of a duly qualified person was not excluded. It also held that the appointment of a judicial officer by nomination was not arbitrary or discriminatory, because the process involved High Court consideration, eligibility assessment, and consultation, and therefore did not violate Articles 14 or 16. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 10 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181599