Dilip Kumar Devasarma vs The State Of Assam And 7 Ors on 22 May, 2026

May 25, 2026

Gauhati High Court

Dilip Kumar Devasarma vs The State Of Assam And 7 Ors on 22 May, 2026

The Shetty Commission Report was submitted in March, 2003,
pursuant to the orders dated 17.12.1997 and 7.1.1998 passed by
this Court wherein it was emphasized that the improvement in
service conditions of the judicial staff is necessary for the
administration of justice and rule of law. This Court, after
considering the submission made by the States/UTs/High Courts,
has accepted the Shetty Commission recommendations and passed
various orders. Finally, on 15.7.2008 this Court has directed:

SPONSORED

i) the recommendations are reasonable and do not involve any
financial burden

ii) the decision to implement the recommendations by all
States should be taken within a period of three months

iii) the recommendations will be implemented w.e.f. 1.4.2003.

We are told that so far all the States/UTs have not
implemented the recommendations fully. Some of the States have
implemented the recommendations but had given effect to the date
later than 1.4.2003. Still some of the grievances of various officers
Page No.# 11/62

are subsisting. In view of these circumstances, we direct that
hereafter these matters be considered by the respective High Courts
of the States/UTs. We direct that:

i) The High Courts, on judicial/administrative side, will ensure
implementation of the recommendations of the Shetty
Commission within a reasonable period of one year. The High
Court shall permit writ petitions or applications that may be
filed by the individual or staff association representing the
various members of the staff.

ii) The High Courts shall also see that the recommendations
are implemented w.e.f. 1.4.2003.”

13. From the perusal of the above quoted order, it would show
that the Supreme Court directed that the High Courts on the
judicial/administrative side to ensure implementation of the
recommendations of the Shetty Commission within a reasonable
period of one year and shall also see that they are implemented
w.e.f. 01.04.2003. The said order necessitated the Hon’ble Chief
Justice of the Gauhati High Court to constitute a Committee for
consideration of the Shetty Commission’s recommendations on
revision of pay scale etc. of the Subordinate Courts staff of
Assam.

14. The records further reveal that the Deputy Legal
Remembrancer and Deputy Secretary to the Government of
Page No.# 12/62

Assam, Judicial Department had sent a letter dated 18.12.2010
to the Accountant General (A & E), Assam stating that in
pursuance to the order dated 07.10.2009 of the Supreme Court
and as per the recommendation of the Gauhati High Court, the
Governor was pleased to implement certain recommendations of
the Shetty Commission in respect to some of the staff of the
Subordinate Courts w.e.f. 01.04.2003. The said letter dated
18.12.2010 was followed by another letter issued by the Deputy
Legal Remembrancer and Deputy Secretary to the Government
of Assam, Judicial Department to the Accountant General (A & E)
dated 12.01.2011 stating that the benefits conveyed by the letter
dated 18.12.2010 covered all the District and Sub-Divisional
Courts including Courts of Special Judges, Designated Court,
Family Court, STAT, MACT, Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals
and other Subordinate Courts etc.

15. It may be relevant to mention that in the communication
dated 18.12.2010, the benefits of the Shetty Commission’s
recommendations were provided to the staff of Subordinate
Courts w.e.f. 01.04.2003. Therefore a conjoint reading of the
communications dated 18.12.2010 and 12.01.2011 would show
that the benefits of the Shetty Commission’s recommendations
would be provided to the Subordinate Courts which would
include the Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts amongst
Page No.# 13/62

others. Consequently, the staff of the Labour Courts and
Industrial Tribunals and more particularly the posts mentioned in
the communication dated 18.12.2010 enjoyed the benefits of the
Shetty Commission’s recommendation. The posts of the
Registrar, Industrial Tribunals or the Labour Courts were not
granted the benefits.

16. The records further reveal that vide the Notification dated
03.05.2012, the pay scale in respect to the post of Registrar,
Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court was enhanced on the basis
of the Assam Pay Commission Report, 2008 thereby putting the
Scale of Pay in Pay Band-4 of Rs.12,000-40,000/- plus Grade Pay
of Rs.5,400/- with effect from February, 2012.

17. Subsequently, another Notification of importance was issued
by the Judicial Department of the Government of Assam dated
30.07.2012 under the heading “Orders by Governor” whereby
various benefits were extended to the non-judicial staff of the
Subordinate Courts in Assam w.e.f. 01.04.2003. It was further
mentioned that the financial benefits recommended in the pre-
revised pay structure shall be given into effect in the pre-revised
pay scale from 01.04.2003 till 31.12.2005 and thereafter in the
corresponding Pay Band and Grade Pay as revised in the State
w.e.f. January, 2006. In the said Notification, insofar the post of
Sheristadar of the District Judge’s Court, it was mentioned that
Page No.# 14/62

there would be re-designation of the said post to Chief
Administrative Officer and the Scale of Pay was mentioned as Rs.
8,100-13,025/- P.M. (Pre-Revised).

It is also of importance to take note of that in the said
Notification dated 30.07.2012, it was categorically mentioned
that the benefits which have been provided in the Notification
shall equally be applicable to the staff of the corresponding
grade and status working in various Courts like MACT/Family
Courts/Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts/Court of the Special
Judge, CBI/Special Judge, Assam/Judge, Designated Courts, etc.
in Assam which falls within the sweep of the term “subordinate
judiciary”.

18. The resultant effect of the Notification dated 30.07.2012
insofar as the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals were
concerned was that all the staff members in the Industrial
Tribunals as well as the Labour Courts were granted benefits of
the Shetty Commission’s recommendations leaving aside the post
of the Registrars of the Labour Courts as well as the Industrial
Tribunals.

19. The question arose whether the Registrar of the Industrial
Tribunals and Labour Courts would be entitled to the Shetty
Commission’s recommendations and if so whether the post of
Page No.# 15/62

Registrars in the Industrial Tribunal/the Labour Court were to be
equated with the post of the Chief Administrative
Officer/Sheristadar of the District Judges Court. The said
question was placed before the Committee constituted by the
Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court for consideration
of the Shetty Commission’s recommendations on revision of pay
scale etc. of the Subordinate Court staffs of Assam.

20. The learned Committee of three Hon’ble Judges of this
Court for consideration of the Shetty Commission’s
recommendations on revision of pay scale, etc. of the
Subordinate Courts of Assam passed a Resolution on 05.10.2012
to the effect that the Registrars of the Industrial
Tribunals/Labour Courts in Assam be paid the salary in the pay
band of Rs.12,000-40,000/- per month with Grade Pay of
Rs.6,300/- as was provided to the Sheristadars of the District
Judges. Resolution No.5 of the Minutes of the Meeting of the
proceedings of the Committee for consideration of the Shetty
Commission’s recommendations on revision of pay scale, etc. of
the Subordinate Courts staff of Assam held on 05.10.2012, being
relevant, is reproduced herein under:-

“5. Consideration of equalization of pay scale of Registrars of Labour

Courts and Industrial Tribunals with that of the Sheristadars of
District & Sessions Judges establishments.

Page No.# 16/62

Resolution No. 5

It appears that the Government of Assam in the notification
dated 30th July, 2012 has mentioned that the benefits given by the
said notification pursuant to the direction issued by the Apex Court,
shall equally be applicable to the staff of the corresponding grade
and status working in various Courts like Labour Courts, Industrial
Tribunals etc., which fall within the sweep of the term ‘Subordinate
Judiciary’. The Registrars of the Industrial Tribunals and the Labour
Courts in Assam are paid the salary in the Pay Band of Rs.12,000-
40,000/- per month with Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/-, though the
Sheristadars in Court of District Judges, which is of the
corresponding grade and status of the Registrars of Labour Courts
and Industrial Tribunal, are paid the salary in the Pay Band of
Rs.12,000-40,000/- per month with Grade Pay of Rs.6,300/-.

The Committee, therefore, recommends payment of the said
Grade Pay of Rs.6,300/- in the aforesaid Pay Band to the Registrars
of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals of Assam, as has been
provided to the Sheristadars of the District Judges.”

The above resolution is of importance as would be seen from
the later part of the present judgment.

21. On the basis of the said Resolution No. 5 adopted by the
Committee constituted for consideration of the Shetty
Commission’s recommendations in the Meeting held on
05.10.2012, a communication was issued by the Registrar
Page No.# 17/62

General of the Gauhati High Court to the Legal Remembrancer
and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Judicial Department
informing that the Registrars of the Labour Courts and Industrial
Tribunals of Assam should be provided the same Scale of Pay as
well as the Grade Pay as is being provided to the Sheristadars of
the District Judges.

22. The Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Judicial
Department on 09.10.2015, almost after three years reverted
back to the communication dated 19.10.2012. It was mentioned
that the Finance Department had advised to place the matter
before the Pay Commission. What thereafter happened, nothing
has been placed before this Court.

23. Be that as it may, eight years thereafter, the Secretary to
the Government of Assam, Judicial Department had issued a
communication dated 20.01.2023 to the Presiding Officers of the
Labour Courts/the Industrial Tribunals set up in the State of
Assam informing that the proposal for allowing upgradation of
pay at par with the Sheristadars in terms with the Shetty
Commission’s recommendations to the Registrars, Labour
Court/Industrial Tribunals was endorsed to the Finance (EC-III)
Department for according necessary concurrence/approval on
the proposal. It was mentioned that the Finance (EC-III)
Department in turn had returned the proposal with the
Page No.# 18/62

observation that there was no recommendation of the Shetty
Commission regarding Registrars of Labour Courts and Industrial
Tribunals. It was also mentioned that the Registrar draws pay in
the State pay scale as per the ROP, and as such, there appears
to be no justification in allowing enhancement of the Grade Pay
at that stage. This communication has been put to challenge in
the instant writ petition.

24. The Petitioner thereupon submitted a representation to the
Registrar General of the Gauhati High Court on 02.02.2023. The
representation submitted by the Petitioner to the Registrar
General of the Guwahati High Court was therefore forwarded to
the State Government. However, as the representation remained
un-redressed, the Petitioner had approach this Court by filing the
present writ petition on 20.12.2024.

25. The record reveals that the Respondent No.4 had filed an
affidavit-in-opposition on 05.04.2025 wherein the facts which
have been already mentioned hereinabove have only been
reiterated. In addition to that it was averred that the Judicial
Department of the Government of Assam would place the matter
before the next Pay Commission as and when constituted by the
State Government as advised by the Finance Department.

26. The Respondent No.6 had also filed an affidavit-in-
Page No.# 19/62

opposition on 27.05.2025 where it was mentioned that the pay
scale of the Registrar, Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal was
Rs.4,300-9,047/- as per ROP, 1998 and its corresponding revised
pay is Pay Band 3, Rs. 8,000-35,000/- plus Grade Pay of
Rs.4,200/-. The pay scale was enhanced to Pay Band-4,
Rs.12,000-40,000/- plus GP Rs.5400/-, which corresponds to the
pay scale in Pay Band 4, i.e. Rs.30,000-1,10,000/- plus GP
Rs.12,700/- as per Assam ROP, 2017.

27. It was averred that the Assam Pay Commission, 2008
though had recommended a Grade Pay of Rs.5,900/-
(corresponding to Rs.13,900/), but the same was not been
accepted by the Three-Member Committee constituted to
examine the report of the Sixth Assam Pay Commission, 2008.
The Committee, upon scrutiny, did not find sufficient justification
in the Pay Commission’s report regarding enhancement of the
Grade Pay for various posts including that of the Registrar of the
Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. The three members Committee
opined that such posts may be assigned Grade Pay
corresponding to their then existing pay scale. The Committee
further directed the concerned Departments should undertake a
feasibility analysis of individual cases and submit detailed
proposals to the Finance Department with proper justification in
the light of paragraph 1.59 of the Committee’s report. It was
Page No.# 20/62

mentioned that subsequent upon receipt of the proposal from
the Labour Department, the matter was examined in detail and a
Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- in Pay Band 4 (corresponding to
Rs.12,700/-) was granted with effect from February, 2012. This
was done keeping in view that the post of the Registrar is a
direct entry post and to maintain a uniform standard across the
State, the highest permissible entry level Grade Pay was
considered as per the general recommendation of the Assam Pay
Commission, 2008 report. The Finance Department further
distinguished the nature and mode of recruitment to the two
posts of the Registrar, Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court with that
of the post of the Chief Administrative Officer in the District
Judiciary, and therefore, had contended that the post of the
Registrar, Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court cannot be equated
with that of the post of the Chief Administrative Officer/Registrar
of the District Courts. In reference to the Notification dated
30.07.2012, it was mentioned that the said Notification was
explicitly applicable only to the non-judicial staff of the
Subordinate Courts and it was reiterated that the said benefits
shall be extended to staff working in various Courts such as
MACT/Family Court/Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, etc.

28. At paragraph No.8 of the said affidavit, it was mentioned
that the recommendations made by the Committee of the
Page No.# 21/62

Gauhati High Court was duly examined by the Department and in
the light of it, clarifications were specifically sought for as to
whether the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court comes under
the term “Subordinate Judiciary” as defined in Articles 233 to 237
of the Constitution. However, the Judicial Department of the
Government of Assam had not provided the comparative
information regarding the pre-revised and revised pay scale of
the post of Registrars, Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts in the
State of Orissa, Bihar and West Bengal. Further to that, it was
also mentioned that any proposal for enhancement of the Grade
Pay of the State Government employees necessarily entails
significant financial implications, and therefore, such proposals
are required to undergo scrutiny from relevant perspectives,
including constitution, administrative and financial perspective
before a considered decision can be taken. It is further
mentioned that the pay scale of the Stenographer Grade-I of the
Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court has consistently remained
higher than that of the Registrar, Industrial Tribunals and Labour
Courts. If there is any discrepancy in the service structure or pay
parity, the concerned Administrative Department shall have to
submit a duly justified proposal to the Finance Department along
with other details.

29. The Petitioner had filed an affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-

Page No.# 22/62

in-opposition filed by Respondent No.6 wherein upon reiterating
the statements made in the writ petition, it was averred that the
nature/duties of the Registrars of the Industrial Tribunals/Labour
Courts and the Sheristadars of the District and Sessions Judges
are identical in as much as there is no other non-judicial post
superior to either of the said post of Registrar and Sheristadar in
their respective establishment and the incumbent of the said
posts function as the Administrative Head of their respective
establishment. It was further mentioned that on account of the
non-inclusion of the post of the Registrar in the Notification
dated 30.05.2024, the Petitioner had been deprived of the
benefits of the Shetty Commission’s recommendations. It was
also denied that the post of the Registrar, Industrial Tribunal is
presently under the administrative control of the Labour and
Welfare Department. The Petitioner stated that though the
Industrial Tribunals and the Labour Courts of Assam were
created under the erstwhile Labour and Employment Department
of the Government of Assam, however, the Judicial Department
exercises control over the said Industrial Tribunals and the
Labour Courts. In that regard, reference was drawn to the
communication issued by the Joint Legal Remembrancer and
Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Judicial Department
dated 26.05.2009 informing that the services of the Judges and
Page No.# 23/62

its establishment of the Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and its establishments have
been brought under Grant No.3 along with the relevant Head of
Account, i.e. “2230 – Labour and Employment” and “2041 – Taxes
on Vehicles” etc respectively. The Petitioner also stated that he
was granted a non-refundable advance from the GPF Account
vide the communication dated 12.11.2024 issued by the Deputy
Secretary to the Government of Assam, Judicial Department.

30. The Respondent Nos.2 & 3 had also filed their affidavit-in-
opposition on 28.10.2025 wherein it is categorically mentioned
that the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court is a
Member of the Assam Judicial Service and the posts of Presiding
Officer are cadre posts under the Assam Judicial Service Rules,
2003. It is further mentioned that in that view of the matter, the
Gauhati High Court, on the administrative side, has the full
power and control under Article 235 of the Constitution to post
any Grade-I Judicial Officer as Presiding Officer of the Industrial
Tribunal/Labour Court by way of deputation. In so far as the post
of the Registrar of the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, it
was mentioned that the said post is not included in the Assam
Judicial Service Rules, 2003. However, the High Court on the
administrative side can forward any representation or appeal to
the Government of Assam to take a conscious decision. It was
Page No.# 24/62

mentioned that the power under Article 235 available with the
Gauhati High Court on the administrative side pertaining to the
post of Presiding Officer, Labour Court is not available for the
post of Registrar, Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. The service
conditions of the post of Registrar Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court are to be regulated by the Government of Assam and the
post of the Registrar, Labour Court is not manned by Judicial
Officers of the State.

31. The Petitioner had filed an additional affidavit on
03.12.2025 thereby bringing on record that the recruitment and
promotion of officers and staff of the establishments of the
District Judges/Chief Judicial Magistrates/Special Judges of the
CBI Court/Special Judges, Assam/Principal Judges of the Family
Court/Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Labour Courts/Industrial
Tribunals and TADA Courts in Assam are undertaken through a
Centralized Recruitment Process conducted by the Registry of the
Gauhati High Court. In that regard, the notice dated 05.10.2012
issued by the Registrar Administration-cum- in-Charge,
Recruitment Cell of the Gauhati High Court, the Notification
dated 04.02.2016 issued by the Registrar Administration-cum- in-
Charge, Centralized Recruitment of the Gauhati High Court as
well as various other Notifications have been brought on record
to show that not only the Gauhati High Court on the
Page No.# 25/62

administrative side carries out the recruitment process for the
staff of the Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts, but also makes
recommendation for their appointment.

32. The Petitioner had further brought on record that the
Presiding Officers of the Industrial Tribunals of Kamrup
Metropolitan, Cachar and Dibrugarh as well as the Labour Courts
of Kamrup Metropolitan and Dibrugarh have been invested with
additional powers to decide Civil, Criminal, and MAC cases by
issuance of appropriate Notification by the Governor of Assam.
In that regard, such Notifications have been also brought on
record.

33. The Petitioner had filed another additional affidavit on
04.02.2026 whereby the duties and functions of the Registrar of
the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court vis-à-vis the duties and
functions of the Sheristadar of the Court of the District and
Sessions Judge and their comparison were provided to show that
the Registrars of Industrial Tribunals and the Labour Courts in
Assam performs similar duties and carries out similar functions
as that of the Sheristadars/the Chief Administrative Officers of
the Courts of the District and Sessions Judges in Assam.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE
PARTIES.

Page No.# 26/62

34. Mr. P. D. Nair, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the Petitioner submitted that a perusal of the creation of the
posts which have been enclosed as Annexure-1 Colly, would
show that the post of the Registrar created vide the
communication dated 22.07.1966, carried a higher Scale of Pay
than the post of the Stenographer.

35. The learned counsel referring to the Shetty Commission’s
recommendations at Chapter XII submitted that the post of the
Chief Administrative Officer being the highest ministerial post in
the District Judiciary was recommended to carry a higher Scale
of Pay than all other staff working in the District Court
Establishment.

36. The learned counsel further referred to Chapter XII of the
Shetty Commission’s recommendations and submitted that the
post of the Chief Administrative Officer has been designated
differently by the State Governments. In the States of Assam,
Bihar, Jharkhand, Kerala, Meghalaya, West Bengal, Orissa and
Lakshadweep, the nomenclature used is the Sheristadar whereas
in the States of Goa, Maharashtra, Gujarat, they have been used
as the Registrars. In some other States, they are used as the
Administrative Officers or the Section Officers or the Clerks of the
State or the Head Sheristadar. Be that as it may, in whatever
name the post is designated but the said post is the highest
Page No.# 27/62

ministerial post in the establishment.

37. The learned counsel further submitted that these
recommendations of the Shetty Commission have been approved
by the Supreme Court in the order dated 07.10.2009 and thereby
directing not only the various High Courts on the judicial and
administrative side, but also the States to grant the benefits to
the members of the staff. The learned counsel further submitted
that the communications dated 18.12.2010 and 12.01.2011
clearly goes to show that the Government of Assam has duly
accepted the recommendations of the Shetty Commission in
pursuance to the order passed by the Supreme Court dated
07.10.2009 and provided the benefits to Subordinate staff not
only limited to the District Judiciary but also the Courts of the
Special Judge Assam, Special Judge CBI, Designated Court,
Family Court, STAT and MACT, Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal
and other Subordinate Courts etc. Consequently, all the staffs
working below the post of the Registrar, Labour Court/Industrial
Tribunal have been provided the benefits of Shetty Commission
recommendations only leaving aside the post of the Registrar of
the Industrial Tribunal/the Labour Court.

38. The learned counsel further submitted that this aspect was
duly taken note of by the Committee so constituted by the
Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court for consideration
Page No.# 28/62

of the Shetty Commission’s recommendation on revision of pay
scale etc. of the Subordinate Courts staff of Assam and the
Committee duly recommended by the Resolution No.5 in the
Minutes of the Meeting dated 05.10.2012 that the post of the
Registrar, Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal should carry the same
pay and Grade Pay with that of the Sheristadar of the District
Judge’s Establishment. The learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the Petitioner further drew the attention of this Court to the
judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of
Maharashtra vs. Labour Law Practitioners’ Association & Others ,

reported in (1998) 2 SCC 688 and submitted that the persons
presiding over the Industrial Courts and Labour Courts would
constitute judicial services as defined, and therefore, the
recruitment of Labour Courts Judges is required to be made in
accordance with Article 234 of the Constitution. Taking a cue
from the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of
Labour Law Practitioners’ Association & Others (supra), the learned

counsel submitted that there is no scope of any argument that
the Labour Court and the Industrial Courts would not constitute
the part of the judicial service. Therefore, it was the submission
of the learned counsel that as the Labour Courts and the
Industrial Courts functioning within the State are all District
Courts, the non-judicial staff attached to those Labour Courts
Page No.# 29/62

and Industrial Courts are also staff of the District Courts under
the supervision of the Presiding Judge of the Labour
Courts/Industrial Tribunals. The learned counsel therefore
submitted that their appointment and conditions of services
should be under the control of the High Court like other staff of
the District Courts. In that regard, the learned counsel submitted
that in fact the same had been followed in as much as the staff
who are appointed to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal are
being appointed pursuant to the recruitment and
recommendation made by the Gauhati High Court through the
centralized recruitment and in that regard had referred to
Annexure- A1, A2, A3, A4 of the additional affidavit filed by the
Petitioner on 03.12.2025.

39. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted
that the work rendered and functions carried out by the
Registrars of the Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts in the State
of Assam are similar, if not more, than that of the
Sheristadars/the Chief Administrative Officers of the
establishments of the District Judges.

40. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that it is
really surprising to take note of the stand taken by the Gauhati
High Court on the administrative side, by filing the affidavit in
respect to the post of the Registrar inasmuch as the said affidavit
Page No.# 30/62

is contrary to the Resolution No. 5 of the Meeting dated
05.10.2012 adopted by the Committee comprising of three
Hon’ble Judges specifically appointed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice
of the Gauhati High Court.

41. The learned counsel for the Petitioner concluded by
submitting that the Finance Department was not therefore
justified in rejecting the proposal so submitted for fixing the pay
scale of the post of Registrar, Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court at
par with the Sheristadars/the Chief Administrative Officer in the
establishment of the District Judges. The learned counsel also
referred to the judgment of the learned Division Bench of the
Gujarat High Court wherein a similar issue arose in the case of
Industrial Courts Employees Association Vs. State of Gujarat
reported in 2012 SCC OnLine Guj 1647.

42. Per Contra, Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the Finance Department contended that the post of
the Registrar of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court falls within
the purview of the Labour and Employment Department and not
in the Judicial Department of the Government of Assam. The
post of the Registrar, Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court has been
provided the highest permissible entry level Grade Pay which was
considered as per the general recommendation of the Assam Pay
Commission, 2008 report. The learned Standing Counsel of the
Page No.# 31/62

Finance Department submitted that the principles of equal pay
for equal work would not apply in respect to the post of
Registrar, Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court with that of the Chief
Administrative Officer of the establishment of the District and
Sessions Judges in as much as the mode of recruitment and the
qualifications which are required are distinct and different. In
that regard, the learned Standing Counsel for the Finance
Department specifically referred to the distinction so drawn in
the affidavit filed by Respondent No.6. The learned Standing
Counsel further referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court
in the case of State of Bihar vs. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle
Committee, reported in 2019 (18) SCC 301 and submitted that the

mode of recruitment is one of the aspects which requires to be
taken into consideration while deciding or adjudicating a dispute
pertaining to parity in pay or in the pay scale.

43. Mr. H. K. Das, the learned Standing Counsel for the Gauhati
High Court submitted that the post of Presiding Officer of the
Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court is a schedule post in the Assam
Judicial Service Rules, 2013. He, however, submitted that the
post of the Registrar, Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, does not
find place in the Assam Judicial Service Rules, 2013.

ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
Page No.# 32/62

44. The documents which have been enclosed at Annexure-A1
Colly shows the creation of the Industrial Tribunals and the
Labour Courts at Guwahati, Dibrugarh and Silchar. While creating
the post of Registrar for the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court
at Dibrugarh, the post has been shown to be a post manned by
an officer whereas the other posts apart from the Presiding
Officers have been shown as posts created for staff. While
creating the post for the Registrar as well as for the
Stenographer, it is seen from the communication dated
22.07.1966 that the post of the Registrar carried a higher Scale
of Pay than that of the Stenographer. However, at the time of
creation of the Industrial Tribunal at Silchar, there is no mention
as to whether the post of the Registrar is that of the staff or that
it has to be manned by an officer. The Scale of Pay of the
Registrar, however, was lower than that of the Stenographer
Grade-I.

45. On 13.11.1991, a decision was rendered by the Supreme
Court in the case of All India Judges Association [1] vs. Union of
India & Others, reported in 1992 (1) SCC 119, whereby a direction

was issued by the Supreme Court to the States and the Union
Territories to separately examine and review the pay structure of
the Members of the District Judiciary. Subsequent thereto, the
Central Government as well as a few State Governments filed
Page No.# 33/62

review applications before the Supreme Court. This led to
another judgment delivered by the Supreme Court on
24.08.1993, which is in the case of the All India Judges
Association [2] vs. Union of India & Others , reported in 1993 (4) SCC

288. By this judgment, rendered on 24.08.1993, some of the

reliefs so granted in the original judgment dated 13.11.1991
were modified and certain directions were passed. Basing upon
such directions, the Union of India appointed the First National
Judicial Pay Commission on 21.03.1996 under the Chairmanship
of Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty and a report was submitted by
His Lordship K. Jagannatha Shetty, J. which is commonly known
as the Shetty Commission Report. In the said recommendations,
more particularly at Chapter XII, it was mentioned that the post
of the Chief Administrative Officer is the highest ministerial post
in the District Judiciary. The person manning the said post, has
to assist the District Judge in the administrative matters of all the
Courts in the district. Matters like leave, transfers, postings,
promotions, departmental enquiries and other service conditions
of the employees of all the Courts are required to be supervised
by the Chief Administrative Officer. Besides that, the Chief
Administrative Officer has to keep track of filing of Suits, Appeals
and other litigations and pendency in the District Court and keep
informed the District Judge. The person manning the said post is
Page No.# 34/62

also the source for securing Acts, Rules, Notifications,
Government Orders and High Court Circulars required by the
Courts in judicial and administrative matters.

46. While making recommendations as regards the pay scale of
the Chief Administrative Officer, reference was made to the
designations held by officers in various States. For example, in
the States of Assam, Bihar, Jharkhand, Kerala, Meghalaya, etc.
the Chief Administrative Officer is designated as the Sheristadar
of the District Court whereas in the States of Goa, Maharashtra
and Gujarat, the Chief Administrative Officer is designated as the
Registrar.

47. In previous segments of the instant judgment, this Court
has duly quoted the recommendations so made at Chapter XII of
the Justice Shetty Commission’s Report. It was recommended
that since the officer, whether in a centralized or decentralized
system of administration, looks after the entire administrative
functions of the Subordinate Courts in the district, it was
appropriate that this officer be designated as the Chief
Administrative Officer. It was also recommended that the pay
scale of the Chief Administrative Officer should be higher than
the pay scale of all other staff working in the District Court
Administration. These recommendations were duly accepted by
the Supreme Court in the order dated 07.10.2009.

Page No.# 35/62

48. The record further reveals that even prior to the order
passed by the Supreme Court dated 07.10.2009 and the effect
being given by the various High Courts on the judicial as well as
the administrative side as well as by the States, it was the
specific stand of the Labour and Employment Department of the
Government of Assam as would be seen from the communication
issued on 01.02.2006 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) wherein it
is mentioned that the Industrial Tribunals and the Labour Courts
fall under the Subordinate Judiciary and they may be exempted
from the purview of the Finance (SIU) Department and the non-
gazetted vacancies be filled up after observing all formalities. It
was further mentioned by another communication dated
23.08.2006 issued by the Judicial Department of the Government
of Assam that as the Labour Courts are performing judicial
functions as a Court, the Labour Courts have been held as
subject to the High Court’s power of superintendence under
Article 227 of the Constitution. It was also mentioned that the
Labour Court Judges can be held to belong to the judicial
service.

49. It is interesting to take note of as to what happened
pursuant to the order passed by the Supreme Court dated
07.10.2009. The benefits of the recommendations of Justice
Shetty Commission percolated upon the staffs who were working
Page No.# 36/62

under the administrative control of the post of the Registrar of
the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. In other words, the State
Government provided the benefits on the basis of the
recommendations of the Shetty Commission’s report thereby the
staffs who were getting a lesser salary than that of the post of
the Registrar started getting better benefits and thereby leaving
the post of the Registrar outside the benefits of the Shetty
Commission’s recommendation.

50. At this stage, this Court finds it very pertinent to take note
of the additional affidavit which has been filed by the Petitioner
on 04.02.2026 wherein a comparison has been made between
the powers and functions discharged by the Chief Administrative
Officer of the establishment of the District and Sessions Judge
vis-à-vis with that of the Registrar of the Industrial
Tribunal/Labour Court. The said duties and functions as certified
by the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal being relevant
are reproduced herein under:-

“Duties and Functions of Registrar of Industrial Tribunal & Labour
Court of Assam

1. Office Administration.

2. To supervise the work of Staff.

3. To make correspondence with administrative department and
other departments of Government.

Page No.# 37/62

4. To issue notices to the parties to the disputes.

5. To issue summons to the parties to the disputes.

6. To give Notes to the Presiding Officer in file relating to
administrative matter.

7. To give Notes to the Presiding Officer to maintain relation
with public.

8. Registrar is to deal with Treasury in financial matters.

9. To issue Court Orders.

10. For ACR of Staff, Registrar is the Reporting
Authority.

11. Registrar is to prepare and maintain the ACR of the
staff.

12. Being the Head of the Office Staff, Registrar is to
assist the Presiding Officer in any administrative matter.

13. Verification and scrutiny of newly referred and
other directly instituted cases to ensure jurisdiction in terms of
civil or schedule and if found correct then to register the case,
in case register maintained separately, giving a case No., then
to write in order sheet fixing a date and asking the parties to
file written statement on or before the fixed date and then to
place before the Presiding Officer.

14. Registrar is the authority to sign the certified copy
of day to day order and any documents relating to the cases.

15. To perform the duties of protocol officer.

Page No.# 38/62

16. Liable for issuance of process and statements to
High court and Government.

17. Although the Sheristadar of District Judge has the
power to sworn/execute affidavit, the Registrar has no power
to execute i.e. evidence in affidavit. The authority may
empower the Registrar with the power to execute affidavit as
and when necessary.

18. To do all functions as and when require felt by the
authority as mentioned in High Court Civil Rules and orders.

Presiding Officer
Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati”

51. The above duties and functions of the Registrar of the
Industrial Tribunal/the Labour Court of the State of Assam if
compared with Rule 836 of Chapter 44 of the Civil Code Rules
and Orders of the Gauhati High Court which mentions about the
nature and duties and functions performed by the Sheristadar of
every Court and further what has been mentioned at paragraph
No.5 of the said additional affidavit, it appears that the duties
and functions of the Registrar, Labour Court/the Industrial
Tribunal is similar, if not more, to that of the Sheristadar/Chief
Administrative Officer of the establishment of the District and
Sessions Judge.

52. It is also the opinion of this Court that the duties and
Page No.# 39/62

functions of the Registrar of the Industrial Tribunal/the Labour
Court as certified by the Presiding Officer of the Industrial
Tribunal are similar to what has been also mentioned as the
duties and functions of the Chief Administrative Officer at
Chapter XII of the Shetty Commission’s report. The relevant
portion of the said Shetty Commission’s report is reproduced
herein below:-

“The post of Chief Administrative Officer is the highest
ministerial post in the District Judiciary. He has to assist the District
Judge in the administrative matters of all the Courts in the District.
Matters like leave, transfers, postings, promotions, departmental
enquiries and other service conditions of employees of all the Courts
are required to be supervised by him. Besides, he has to keep track
of filing of Suits, Appeals and other litigations and pendency in the
District Court and keep informed the District Judge. He is indeed the
source for securing Acts, Rules, Notifications, Government Orders
and High Court Circulars, required by the Courts in judicial and
administrative matters.”

The above analysis would therefore show that the services
rendered by the Registrar, Industrial Tribunal is similar to the
service rendered by the Sheristadar/ Chief Administrative Officer
of the establishment of the District Judges.

53. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court deal with the
aspect as to whether the Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals
Page No.# 40/62

would come within the purview of the Subordinate Courts and
subject to the control of the Gauhati High Court as envisaged
under Article 235 of the Constitution.

54. Chapter VI of Part VI of the Constitution of India starts with
the heading “Subordinate Courts.” Chapter VI of the Constitution
contains six Articles. Article 233 of the Constitution deals with
the appointment of District Judges. Article 233A of the
Constitution starts with the heading, “Validation of appointments
of, and judgments, etc., delivered by certain District Judges.”

55. Article 234 of the Constitution relates to the recruitment of
persons other than District Judges to the judicial service. The
said Article stipulates that appointments of persons other than
District Judges to the judicial service of a State shall be made by
the Governor of the State in accordance with Rules made by him
in that behalf after consultation with the State Public Service
Commission and with the High Court, exercising jurisdiction in
relation to such State. In the case of A.C. Thalwal vs. High Court of
Himachal Pradesh, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 1, the Supreme Court

observed that the consultation contemplated under Article 234 of
the Constitution is not a matter of mere formality; it has to be
meaningful and effective. The Supreme Court further opined in
the said judgment that the judicial services so referred to in
Article 234 of the Constitution has to be independent of
Page No.# 41/62

executive influence, and as such, the Constitution of India has
placed them on a pedestal different from other services under
the State.

56. Article 235 of the Constitution starts with the heading,
“Control over Subordinate Courts.” A reading of the said Article
would show that the control over District Courts and Courts
subordinate thereto, including the posting and promotion of, and
the grant of leave to, persons belonging to the judicial service of
a State and holding any post inferior to the post of District
Judge, shall be vested in the High Court.

57. The judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Nripendra Nath Bagchi ,
reported in AIR 1966 SC 447, dealt with the interplay of the words
“control” and “vest” used in Article 235 of the Constitution. It
was observed by the Supreme Court that control was vested in
the High Court to effectuate a purpose, namely, the securing of
the independence of the subordinate judiciary. It was further
observed that the word “control” was used for the first time in
the Constitution of India and it was accompanied by the word
“vest” which is a strong word. The use of the word “control” and
then accompanied by the word “vest” indicates that the High
Court is made the sole custodian over the control over the
Subordinate judiciary. It was further observed by the said
Page No.# 42/62

Constitution Bench that while Article 227 of the Constitution
gives the High Court the superintendence over all Courts and
Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it
exercises jurisdiction, the word “control” in Article 235 of the
Constitution has to be therefore given a different meaning and
context, or in other words, it includes something in addition to
mere superintendence. In addition to that, the Supreme Court
also observed that the control which is vested in the High Court
is a complete control, subject only to the power of the Governor
in the matter of appointment (including dismissal and removal)
and posting and promotion of District Judges. It was observed
that within this power of control vested, the High Court can hold
enquiries, impose punishments other than dismissal or removal
subject however subject to the conditions of service and right of
appeal, if granted by the conditions of service.

58. It is also very pertinent to take note of another judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Registrar General, High Court of
Judicature of Madras vs. R. Perachi , reported in (2011) 12 SCC 137

wherein inter alia one of the issues involved was whether the
Chief Justice could have transferred the Respondent No.1 therein
who was working as a Sheristadar, Category 1 in the Court of the
Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi outside the district in as
much as that power under Article 235 of the Constitution was
Page No.# 43/62

conferred upon the High Court and not the Chief Justice. The
Supreme Court held that in terms with Article 235 of the
Constitution of India, the control of the High Court over the
Subordinate Courts included the general superintendence of the
working of the Subordinate Courts and their staff.

59. This Court also finds it relevant to take note of Article 236
of the Constitution which defines the term “District Judge” and
“Judicial Service”. The Supreme Court in the case of R.M. Gujjar
and Another vs. the High Court of Gujarat and Others , reported in

(1992) 4 SCC 10 categorically observed that the power under

Article 235 of the Constitution extends to the ministerial officers
and servants on the establishment of the Subordinate Courts.

60. The above proposition therefore would show that the High
Court under Article 235 of the Constitution not only exercises
control upon the judicial officers but also upon the ministerial
officers and staff in the establishment of the Subordinate Courts.

61. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court consider
whether the Labour Courts as well as the Industrial Tribunals
would come within the purview of the control of the High Court
under Articles 235 and 236 of the Constitution.

62. In the case of Labour Law Practitioners’ Association & Others
(supra), the issue which was involved was as to whether for
Page No.# 44/62

appointment of the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, there
was a necessity to comply with the provisions of Article 234 of
the Constitution.

63. The Supreme Court, after dealing with various judgments,
opined that the Labour Court Judges and the Judges of the
Industrial Courts belong to the judicial service and recruitment
of the Labour Court Judges are required to be made in
accordance with Article 234 of the Constitution. It is very
apposite herein to observe that the Supreme Court while dealing
with the question observed why the Presiding Judges of the
Specialized Tribunals would come within the ambit of District
Judge. Paragraph Nos. 10, 16 and 20 of the said judgment being
relevant are quoted herein under:-

“10. The District Judge, therefore, covers a judge of any Principal

Civil Court of original jurisdiction. With an increase in the numbers
of specialised courts and tribunals which are being set up to deal
with specific kinds of civil litigation which would otherwise have
been dealt with by the ordinary civil courts, we now have a number
of specialised courts exercising different categories of civil original
jurisdiction. It can be specialised civil original jurisdiction pertaining
to labour and industrial disputes specified in the relevant Acts as in
the case of Labour and Industrial Courts, or it could be pertaining to
recovery of bank debts and so on. The structure of civil courts
exercising original jurisdiction is no longer monolithic. The judge of
Page No.# 45/62

the Principal Civil Court heading the set of courts concerned under
him and exercising that jurisdiction can also fall in the category of a
“District Judge” by whatever name called. Learned Single Judge and
learned Judges of the Division Bench have, therefore, held that an
Industrial Court is a civil court exercising civil original jurisdiction;
and the person presiding over it could well be termed as a District
Judge. The term “District Judge” should not be confined only to the
judge of the Principal Civil Court in the hierarchy of general civil
courts. The term would now have to include also the hierarchy of
specialised civil courts, such as a hierarchy of Labour Courts and
Industrial Courts. The fact that the Chief Presidency Magistrate and
the Sessions Judge were also included in the definition of “District
Judge” indicates that a wide interpretation is to be given to the
expression “District Judge”. The extensive definition of a District
Judge under Article 236 is indicative of the same.

16. We need not refer at length to various other judgments which
have dealt with the question whether a Tribunal set up under
different Acts which were before the Court in each case was a
judicial body or a court, and whether it was a court subordinate to
the High Court. In Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder
Jhunjhunwala the Central Government exercising appellate powers
under Section 111 of the Companies Act was held to be acting as a
judicial body and not as an administrative body. In the case of
Shripatrao Dajisaheb Ghatge v. State of Maharashtra the term
“courts” was held to cover all tribunals which were basically courts
performing judicial functions giving judgments which were binding
Page No.# 46/62

and exercising sovereign judicial power transferred to them by the
State. It was held that High Court could exercise its jurisdiction
under Article 227 over such tribunals. A Full Bench of the Gujarat
High Court in the case of Sk. Mohammedbhikhan Hussainbhai v.
Manager, Chandrabhanu Cinema held that Labour Courts and
Industrial Courts were courts for the purposes of Contempt of
Courts Act and were also courts subordinate to the High Court.

20. The constitutional scheme under Chapter V of Part VI dealing
with the High Courts and Chapter VI of Part VI dealing with the
subordinate courts shows a clear anxiety on the part of the framers
of the Constitution to preserve and promote independence of the
judiciary from the executive. Thus Article 233 which deals with
appointment of District Judges requires that such appointments shall
be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High
Court. Article 233(2) has been interpreted as prescribing that “a
person in the service of the Union or the State” can refer only to a
person in the judicial service of the Union or the State. Article 234
which deals with recruitment of persons other than District Judges
to the judicial service requires that their appointments can be made
only in accordance with the Rules framed by the Governor of the
State after consultation with the State Public Service Commission
and with the High Court. Article 235 provides that the control over
district courts and courts subordinate thereto shall be vested in the
High Court; and Article 236 defines the expression “District Judge”

extensively as covering judges of a City Civil Court etc. as earlier set
out, and the expression “judicial service” as meaning a service
Page No.# 47/62

consisting exclusively of persons intended to fill the post of the
District Judge and other civil judicial posts inferior to the post of
District Judge. Therefore, bearing in mind the principle of separation
of powers and independence of the judiciary, judicial service
contemplates a service exclusively of judicial posts in which there
will be a hierarchy headed by a District Judge. The High Court has
rightly come to the conclusion that the persons presiding over
Industrial and Labour Courts would constitute a judicial service so
defined. Therefore, the recruitment of Labour Court judges is
required to be made in accordance with Article 234 of the
Constitution.”

64. From the above quoted paragraphs, it is clear that the
Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals come within the ambit of
Article 235 of the Constitution. Now applying the principles laid
down by the Supreme Court in the case of R. Perachi (supra) and
R. M. Gujjar (supra), the ministerial staff would come within the
preview of Article 235 of the Constitution.

This position is duly admitted by the State of Assam as would
be seen from the communications dated 01.02.2006 and
23.08.2006, issued by the concerned officials of the State of
Assam. It is also apposite to observe that the communications
dated 18.12.2010 and 12.01.2011 read with the Notification
dated 30.07.2012 also clearly indicate that the State of Assam
Page No.# 48/62

had all along held that the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals
are Subordinate Courts and had bestowed the benefits arising
out of the Shetty Commission recommendations w.e.f.
01.04.2003 upon all ministerial officers and staff of the Labour
Courts/Industrial Tribunals except the post of the Registrar.

65. The above analysis would therefore show that not only the
Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts/ Industrial Tribunals but
also the ministerial officers and staff would come under the
control of the Gauhati High Court. This would include the post of
the Registrar of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal in the State
of Assam. In this regard, it is relevant to take note of the
Resolution No. 5 of the Minutes of the Meeting dated 05.10.2012
of the Committee constituted by the Hon’ble Chief Justice for
consideration of the Shetty Commission’s recommendations on
revision of pay scale etc. of the Subordinate Courts staff of
Assam wherein it was recommended that the post of the
Registrar of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court should be
granted the same Scale of Pay to that of the Sheristadar/Chief
Administrative Officer of the establishment of the District Judges.

It is the opinion of this Court that as the Gauhati High Court
has the absolute control vested upon it by Article 235 of the
Constitution over the Subordinate Courts which includes the
Ministerial officers and staff of the Labour Courts/Industrial
Page No.# 49/62

Tribunals, it is only the Gauhati High Court on the administrative
side who would be the competent authority to decide on the
aspect pertaining to parity of employment and status of the post
vis-a-vis another post both falling within the ‘Subordinate Courts’.
Neither the Finance Department nor the Assam Pay Commission
can decide the said aspect. The aforesaid opinion of this Court
finds support from the opinion expressed by the learned Division
Bench of the Gujarat High Court, in the case of Industrial Courts
Employees Association (supra) and more particularly, paragraph

No. 10 which is quoted hereinbelow:-

“10. After the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, there is no
scope of any further argument that the Labour and the Industrial
Court would not constitute part of the judicial services. Thus, the
labour and the industrial courts functioning within the State are all
District Courts and consequently, the non-judicial staffs attached to
those labour and industrial courts are the staffs of the District Court
under the Supervision of the principal judge of the Industrial Court.
Thus, their appointment and service shall also under the control of
the High Court like other staff of the District Courts.”

Under such circumstances, the rejection of the proposal
which was made on the basis of the Resolution No. 5 of the
Minutes of the Meeting dated 05.10.2022 by the Finance
Department of the Government of Assam lacked competence and
can be termed as an act of arbitrariness which violates the
Page No.# 50/62

mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.

66. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of the
judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of
Kerala vs. V. Renjith Kumar & Others, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 219,

wherein the issue involved was as to whether the Presiding
Officers of the Industrial Tribunals in the State of Kerala would
be entitled to parity of pay with the District Judges in the State.
This judgment is of relevance taking into account that the
contention which was raised in the said proceedings is also a
contention being raised in the instant proceedings to the effect
that there cannot be a parity of pay in as much as there was
difference in the source of recruitment. At the cost of verbosity, it
is very pertinent to take note of that it is the case of the Finance
Department of the Government of Assam that the recruitment in
the case of the Chief Administrative Officer (earlier Sheristadar)
in the establishment of the District Judges is by way of
promotion whereas in the case of the appointment to the post of
Registrar, it is a direct recruit.

67. The Supreme Court was dealing with the issue that the
benefit of the Shetty Commission’s recommendation only flowed
upon the District Judges, however, the Presiding Officers of the
Industrial Tribunals were not granted the benefit on the ground
that the source of recruitment was different, observed at
Page No.# 51/62

paragraph No.11 of the said judgment that prior to 01.07.1988,
the pay scale of the Presiding Officers of the Industrial Tribunal
and the District Judges were the same. Thereupon, the District
Judges were granted selection grade in the scale of Rs.3,700-
4,200/- and all the three Industrial Tribunals services at that time
were also placed in the selection grade of Rs.3,700-4,200/-.
Thereupon, both the services, i.e. the District Judges as well as
the Presiding Officers of the Industrial Tribunals continued to
remain the same. However, pursuant to the recommendation
made by the National Judicial Pay Commission (Shetty
Commission), the pay scale of the District Judges was increased.

68. The Supreme Court observed that the action of the State
Government in treating the officers presiding over the Industrial
Tribunals differently from the District Judges in the matter of pay
scale, on its face, was in violation to Article 14 of the
Constitution. The relevant paragraphs, being paragraph Nos.13,
14, 15, 18 & 19 are reproduced herein under:-

13. Indisputably, the Government of India based on the
recommendations of this Court by Resolution dated 21-3-1994
constituted the First National Judicial Pay Commission to go into the
question of the pay scales and to recommend uniform Scale of Pay
for the subordinate judiciary in the States and Union Territories.

Accordingly, National Judicial Pay Commission (Shetty Commission)
Page No.# 52/62

recommended pay revision to the District Judges and other
members of the subordinate judiciary in the year 1998.

14. It is not in dispute that the officers who presided over the
Labour Courts and those appointed as Presiding Officers of the
Industrial Tribunals do decide disputes under the ID Act, 1947.
There is no qualitative difference in the nature of functions or duties
attached to the categories of posts. This parity having been
recognised and accepted by the State Government for more than 30
years, the High Court, in our view, has rightly observed that the
mere fact that the Constitution refers to the appointment of District
Judges alone cannot, by itself, be a good ground for treating the
Presiding Officers of the Industrial Tribunal and the District Judges
differently. The High Court held that even the Presiding Officers of
the Industrial Tribunals are not outside the ambit of the Constitution
as the protection of rules framed under Article 309 as also under
Article 311 is available to them.

15. The State Government had granted pay scale on a par with that
of the District Judges before the recommendations of the pay scales
of the District Judges by the Shetty Commission by which District
Judges were placed in higher scales which benefit has been denied
to the Presiding Officers of the Industrial Tribunals merely on the
ground that the Presiding Officers of the Industrial Tribunals are not
appointed under Article 233 of the Constitution of India nor are they
appointed to the judicial services of a State under Article 234 of the
Constitution. The action of the State Government in treating the
officers presiding over the Industrial Tribunal differently from the
Page No.# 53/62

District Judges in the matter of pay scales on its face is in violation
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The essential educational
and professional qualifications for appointment of the Presiding
Officers of the Industrial Tribunals are identical to that of the
appointment of District Judges.

18. In the present case, the respondents’ claim before the High
Court was confined to equal Scale of Pay to that of the District
Judges. This was based on the fact that the respondents are
discharging similar duties and functions in the administration of
justice and their Scale of Pay was equal to that of District Judges till
revision of pay scales of the judicial officers in the year 1998. The
Industrial Tribunals are indisputably judicial tribunals manned by
legal professionals who are eligible to be appointed as District
Judges or Judges of the High Courts. The Presiding Officers are
exercising judicial powers and duties under the ID Act, 1947 and
their decisions are subject-matter of challenge before the High Court
by way of writ petition. The only difference is their source of
recruitment.

19. Looking to the nature of duties and functions of these
respondents, we are of the opinion that there is no reason to treat
them differently. Once these persons are already working for more
than three decades discharging the same functions and duties, we
see no reason why the same benefit should not be given to the
respondents and other similarly situated Presiding Officers of the
Tribunal who are the applicants before us in IA No. 2 of 2004.”

Page No.# 54/62

69. This Court also finds it relevant to take note of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges
Association vs. Union of India, reported in (2024) 1 SCC 546 wherein

the Supreme Court observed that the benefit of the pay revision
should be extended to the Judges of the Industrial
Tribunals/Labour Courts even though they may not be presided
over by judicial officers. Paragraph No.77 of the said judgment,
being relevant, is reproduced herein under:-

“77. Though Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals, both statutory

courts created under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not
presided over by judicial officers, they are entitled to equal pay as
District Judges based on the principle of equal pay for equal work.
Following this principle, this Court in State of Kerala v. B. Renjith
Kumar and State of Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners’ Assn.
held that judicial officers of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunal
ought to be considered on par with judicial officers. The
recommendation of the Tribunal that the pay revision be extended
to Judges of the Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts, thus merits
acceptance as it is only an extension of the law laid down by this
Court.”

70. In the backdrop of the above principles, it is the opinion of
this Court that the post of the Registrar of the Industrial
Tribunals/the Labour Courts which forms a part of the
Subordinate Courts as analyzed in the previous segments of the
Page No.# 55/62

present judgment would also be entitled to the benefits of the
recommendations made by the Shetty Commission which have
been given to all other staff members, of the Labour
Courts/Industrial Tribunals. Merely on the ground that the post of
the Registrar is appointed by the Labour Department of the
Government of Assam and not the Judicial Department depriving
the benefits of the Shetty Commission’s recommendation would
be violative of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution. The
judgments in the cases of V. Renjith Kumar & Others (supra) as
well as the All India Judges Association (supra) makes it clear that
irrespective of the source of recruitment, there cannot be a
denial to the benefits if the post comes within the ambit of
Subordinate Courts.

71. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of Section
7A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as Section 165 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. While Section 7A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 stipulates that the Appropriate Government
would constitute Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, Section 165 of
the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 empowers the State Government to
constitute the Claims Tribunal. The Judicial Officers of the Grade
of District Judges of the State of Assam are appointed as the
Presiding Officer of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal in the
State of Assam and similarly the Judicial Officers of the Grade of
Page No.# 56/62

District Judges in the State of Assam are appointed as Members
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the State of Assam. It is
however shocking and surprising to note that the Head of
Ministerial Officers and staff of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal i.e. the post of Chief Administrative Officer of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Assam is equated by the State of
Assam with that of the Chief Administrative Officer of the
establishment of the District Judges and paid the same scale of
pay along with grade pay, but the Head of Ministerial officers
and staff of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court in Assam i.e. the
post of the Registrar is not granted the same status as well as
scale of pay with Grade Pay to that of the Chief Administrative
Officer of the establishment of the District Judges. The above
aspect would be apparent from a mere perusal of the Notification
dated 30.05.2024 issued by the Finance Department of the
Government of Assam and more particularly at Serial No. 34 of
the said Notification. Serial No. 34 of the said Notification is
reproduced hereinbelow:-

34. Chief Administrative PB-4, 12000- 6300 PB-4, 14500
Officer (Sheristadar) of 40000 30000-

      District                                     110000
      Judge/MACT/Special
      Judge,     CBI,   NIA   &
      NDPS/Judge,
                                                               Page No.# 57/62

      Designated Court

72. This Court while hearing the writ petition enquired with the
Standing Counsels of both the Gauhati High Court as well as the
Finance Department of the Government of Assam as to the
reason for the differential treatment between the Chief
Administrative Officer, MACT with that of the Registrar, Industrial
Tribunal/Labour Court. It was contended that the source of
recruitment is different inasmuch as the Chief Administrative
Officer, MACT is appointed by the Judicial Department whereas
the Registrar, Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal is appointed by
the Labour Department. The reason so assigned is totally
misconceived inasmuch as there appears to be no intelligible
differentia to distinguish merely on the ground which
Department of the Government of Assam had appointed, for the
simple reason that both the MACT as well as the Labour
Courts/Industrial Tribunals fall within the ambit of Subordinate
Courts.

73. The above analysis would therefore show that the act on
the part of the State of Assam to deprive the person holding the
post of Registrar, Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court with equal
status and salary with that of the Chief Administrative Officer of
the establishment of the District Judges/MACT is in violation to
Page No.# 58/62

the equality principle enshrined in Article 14 and Article 16 of the
Constitution.

CONCLUSIONS

74. Accordingly the instant writ petition stands disposed of with
the following observations and directions:

(A) The impugned communication dated 20.01.2023 issued
by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Judicial
Department to the Presiding Officers of Labour
Courts/Industrial Tribunals of the State of Assam is set
aside and quashed.

(B) The non-judicial officers and staff of the Labour
Courts/Industrial Tribunals in the State of Assam which
includes the post of the Registrar, Industrial
Tribunals/Labour Courts would come within the ambit of
officers and staff of the Subordinate Courts and therefore
under the control of the Gauhati High Court in terms with
Article 235 of the Constitution.

(C) The post of the Registrar, Labour Courts/Industrial
Tribunals would come under the control vested upon the
Gauhati High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution
irrespective of the fact that the person is appointed by the
Judicial Department or the Labour Department.

Page No.# 59/62

(D) It is the Gauhati High Court on the administrative side
who would have the competence to decide the parities of
status and employment amongst the members of judicial
service as well as the non-judicial officers and staff working
in the Subordinate Courts within the jurisdiction of the
Gauhati High Court. Neither the Finance Department of the
State of Assam nor the Assam Pay Commission would have
the competence on the said aspect, inasmuch as it would
impact on the independence of the Judiciary which is a
basic feature of the Constitution. Under such circumstances,
the State of Assam could not have taken a contrary view to
the opinion of the parity in employment and status as
opined by the Committee constituted by the Hon’ble Chief
Justice i.e the Committee for consideration of the Shetty
Commission’s recommendations on revision of pay scale
etc. of the Subordinate Courts staff of Assam in the Minutes
of the Meeting dated 05.10.2012 and more particularly to
the Resolution No. 5.

(E) The services rendered by the Registrar of Industrial
Tribunals/ Labour Courts are similar to that of the
Sheristadar (Chief Administrative Officer) of the
establishment of the District Judges, MACT, Special Judges,
CBI, NIA, NDPS as well as Judge, Designated Court and as
Page No.# 60/62

such the post of the Registrar, Industrial Tribunals/Labour
Courts should carry the same Scale of Pay along with Grade
Pay to that of the Chief Administrative Officer of the Court
of District Judge, MACT, Special Judge, CBI, NIA, NDPS as
well as Judge, Designated Court.

(F) The status of the Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts is at
par with the MACT and under such circumstances granting
a lower pay scale and grade pay to the Registrar, Industrial
Tribunals/Labour Courts to that what is enjoyed by the post
of the Chief Administrative Officer, MACT violates the
fundamental rights of the person holding the post of
Registrar, Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts in the State of
Assam under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

(G) The State of Assam and more particularly the Finance
Department of the Government of Assam, the Judicial
Department of the Government of Assam as well as the
Gauhati High Court are directed to take steps forthwith to
pay the equivalent Scale of Pay along with Grade Pay to the
Petitioner as well as other officers holding the post of
Registrar, Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts of the State of
Assam equivalent to the Scale of Pay and Grade Pay of the
Chief Administrative Officer, MACT w.e.f. the date, the Chief
Administrative Officer, MACT has been provided with the
Page No.# 61/62

equivalent Pay Scale and Grade Pay to that of the
Sheristadar (Chief Administrative Officer) of the
establishment of the District Judges.

(H) The arrears to which the Petitioner would be entitled to
shall be paid to the Petitioner within 6 (six) months from
the date of the present judgment.

(I) The Registrar General, Gauhati High Court, the
Commissioner and Secretary to the Finance Department as
well as the Commissioner and Secretary to the Judicial
Department of the Government of Assam are directed to file
compliance affidavits to the aforesaid directives within 8
(eight) months from the date of the present judgment.

(J) There shall be no order as to costs.

75. Before parting with the record, this Court finds it relevant to
make an observation on the stand taken by the Gauhati High Court in
the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 28.10.2025 in the present
proceedings. It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Chief Justice of
the Gauhati High Court had constituted the Committee for
consideration of the Shetty Commission’s recommendations on
revision of pay scale etc. of the Subordinate Courts staff of Assam.
The opinion and resolution adopted by the said Committee had the
concurrence of the Hon’ble Chief Justice. The Committee acted on the
Page No.# 62/62

authority granted by the Gauhati High Court under Article 235 of the
Constitution insofar as the implementation of the recommendations of
the Shetty Commission. It is disheartening to note that the Gauhati
High Court in the present proceedings have taken a contrary stand to
the Resolution No. 5 dated 05.10.2012 of the Committee for
consideration of the Shetty Commission’s recommendations on
revision of pay scale etc. of the Subordinate Courts staff of Assam that
too without placing anything on record that the said Resolution No. 5
at point of time subsequently stood amended/modified/annulled by
the Gauhati High Court on the administrative side.

JUDGE

Digitally signed by Satyam Sharma
Date: 2026.05.22 08:56:57 +05’30’

Comparing Assistant

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Dilip Kumar Devasarma vs The State Of Assam And 7 Ors on 22 May, 2026

Gauhati High Court