Appeal No 103 of 1952
Appeal under article 1331 c of the Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order dated the 10th August 1951 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur Wanchoo and Bapna JJ in D B Civil Miscellaneous Application No 21 of 1951
K section Hajela Advocate General of Rajasthan for the appellant
No appearance for the respondents
March 17
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GHULAM HASAN J
This appeal is brought under a certificate granted by the High Court of Rajasthan under article 133c of the Constitution of India against a judgment and order of that High Court in writ petition under article 226 holding the appointment of one Shri Sukhdeo Narain as invalid and directing that all proceedings taken by him as the Industrial Court under section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act No XIV of 1947 are null and void
1130 We are informed that Shri Sukhdeo Narain has ceased to work as an Industrial Tribunal and the present appeal therefore becomes infructuous but we are invited by the Advocate General on behalf of the State of Rajasthan who is the appellant before us to decide the question as to the validity of the appointment as it is likely to affect other awards made by tribunals under the Industrial Disputes Act
We accordingly proceed to give our decision
The question involved in the case is whether the appointment of Shri Sukhdeo Narain is invalid because he does not fulfil the qualifications laid down for a tribunal under section 73 of the Industrial Disputes Act
Section 73 hereinafter referred to as the Industrial Act says  Where a tribunal consists of one member only that member and where it consists of two or more members the chairman of the tribunal shall be a person who a is or has been a Judge of a High Court or b is or has been a District Judge       The Industrial Act was applied to Rajasthan by the Rajasthan Adaptation of Central Laws Ordinance 1950 Ordinance IV of 1950 by the Rajpramukh on January 24 1950
By this adaptation section 7 of the Industrial Act came to be applied to Rajasthan
Shri Sukhdeo Narain was appointed on October 9 1950 by a notification which ran as follows In exercise of the powers conferred by section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947XIV of 1947 the Government of Rajasthan is pleased to constitute an Industrial Tribunal consisting of Shri Sukhdeo Narain a retired Judge of the High Court of the erstwhile Jodhpur State for the adjudication of an Industrial dispute in the Mewar Textile Mills Ltd Bhilwara in Rajasthan
 The appointment of Shri Sukhdeo Narain was objected to by the respondent on the ground that the 1131 words a Judge of a High Court in section 73 mean  a Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan established under the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949 and as Shri Sukhdeo Narain had been a Judge of the High Court of the former State of Jodhpur he could not be held to be Judge of the High Court under section 73 of the Industrial Act
This objection was upheld by the High Court
Though the appointment of Shri Sukhdeo Narain in the notification was based upon the fact that he was a retired Judge of the High Court of Jodhpur in arguments it was also contended before the High Court that even if he was not qualified for appointment as a former Judge of a High Court he was certainly qualified for appointment as a former District Judge
The High Court repelled this contention
It appears that the United State of Rajasthan came into existence on April 7 1949 and the United State of Matsya was integrated with it on May 15 1949
Section 5 of Ordinance No IV of 1950 lays down that  For the purpose of the application of any Central law to Rajasthan unless there be anything repugnant in the suject or context ix references therein to other civil criminal and revenue courts to public offices and to Judges Magistrates officers or authorities shall be deemed to be references to such courts offices and Judges Magistrates officers or authorities of or in Rajasthan
 The High Court held that the word Rajasthan as defined in Ordinance I of 1949 means the United State of Rajasthan and the Judges an d other officers mentioned in section 5ix must be held to be those in the service of the United State of Rajasthan
Accordingly they held that Shri Sukhdeo Narain could not be held to be a District Judge within the meaning of section 73 b and his appointment as an Industrial Tribunal under that section was therefore invalid
We are of opinion that this appeal can be decided on a short ground
The Industrial Disputes Appellate Tribunal Act XLVIII of 1950 came into force on May 20 1950
By section 34 it was provided that the 1132 Industrial Disputes Act XIV of 1947 shall be amended in the manner specified in the Schedule and the Schedule substituted sub section 2 to section 1 of the Industrial Act as follows  It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir
 As we have already stated the appointment of Shri Sukhdeo Narain was made on October 9 1950 ie after the Industrial Disputes Act had become applicable to Rajasthan
It is not necessary therefore to invoke the provisions of Ordinance
IV of 1950 in deciding the question of the validity of the appointment
The argument based on section 34 of Act XLVIII of 1950 was put forward before the High Court at the time of the hearing of the application for leave to appeal and it was contended that in view of section 34 the provisions of Rajasthan Adaptation of Central Laws Ordinance 1950 namely section 5 subsections vii and ix stood amended or repealed but the High Court observed that even if this argument had been raised before them in appeal it would have made no difference
It has been contended before us by Mr Hajela the learned Advocate General on behalf of the State that after the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 was extended to Rajasthan by section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Appellate Tribunal Act XLVIII of 1950 the provisions of the former stood amended by section 34 and could not be read subject to section 5 of the Rajasthan Adaptation of Central Laws Ordinance IV of 1950
We think there is force in this contention
The effect of section 34 as we have already indicated was to extend the territorial application of the  to the whole of India including Rajasthan the exception being the State of Jammu and Kashmir only
This being so the words A Judge of a High Court and a District Judge used in section 73 a and b respectively of the  must be held now to include A Judge of the High Court and a District Judge in the former State of Jodhpur
There is now no room for the application of section 5 of Ordinance IV of 1950 according to which a Judge of the High Court 1133 and a District Judge could only
mean a Judge of the High Court for Rajasthan established under the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949 and a District Judge of or in Rajasthan within the meaning of section 5ix of Ordinance No IV of 1950
Accordingly we hold that the appointment of Shri Sukhdeo Narain was perfectly valid
We accordingly set aside the order of the High Court but without costs as the respondent is not represented


Summary:
Held that under section 73 a and b of the Industrial Disputes Act XIV of 1947 as amended by section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Appellate Tribunal Act XLVIII of 1950 the phrase a Judge of a High Court and a District Judge includes a Judge of the High Court and a District Judge in the former State of Jodhpur