- (1.)In this petition. the petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court, Ghaziabad, dt. 14th Sept. 1981. The Presiding Officer of the said Labour Court was Sri P. C. Kulshrestha. Besides other grounds taken for challenging the award given by Sri P. C. Kulshrestha, the petitioner, in the present petition, challenged the appointment of Sri Kulshrestha on the ground that he was not qualified to be appointed as the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court. This petition has been connected with more than 100 more petitions wherein also appointments of various Presiding Officers of the various Labour Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh have been challenged. Some of these petitions challenged the award, the interim award and the other orders passed by the Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts and, as such, in accordance with the Rules of this Court, these petitions are cognizable by a Single Judge and are to be disposed of finally by the single Judge. There are numerous petitions filed for writs of Quo- Warranto challenging the appointments of the various Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts and ex parte interim orders have been obtained. Since no order of the Presiding Officer was challenged, the petitions were cognizable by a Division Bench and the final orders also in those petitions can be passed by the Division Bench. In accordance with the Rules of this Court, once the petition is admitted and notices issued to the opposite parties. thereafter, the question of stay is considered by a single Judge and the single Judge has to pass final orders on the stay matter.
(2.)In view of the above, so far as those petitions are concerned, which are cognizable by a single Judge, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in regard to the validity of the appointments of the Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts who delivered the awards or orders impugned. In regard to other petitions, which are cognizable by the Division Bench, learned counsel for the parties were heard on the stay application and it was agreed by the learned counsel for the parties that in case I come to the conclusion that the appointments of the Presiding Officers were valid, in law, then the interim stay applications in the petitions will be finally disposed of by me in the light of the decision given on the question in regard to the validity of the appointments of the Presiding Officers. In this view of the matter, I also heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the opposite parties at length even in those petitions which were cognizable by a Division Bench for the purposes of considering the continuance of the stay orders.
(3.)At one stage, learned counsel for the petitioners made a suggestion that all these matters may be referred to a Division Bench for hearing, as some of the petitions could be finally disposed of only by a Division Bench. This suggestion was vehemently opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties and their argument was that in view of the stay orders passed by this Court, the poor workmen were suffering irreparable injury, as the working of practically all the Labour Courts have been completely paralysed in the State and if the matter is referred to a larger Bench, the petitions are not likely to be heard for a considerably long lime due to the non-availability of the Benches for the said purpose. Ultimately, therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners agreed that in so far as those petitions, which are cognizable by a Division Bench, are concerned. I should hear the stay applications finally after deciding the question in regard to the validity of the appointments of the Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts, which have been challenged in this petition as well as in other petitions.