ORDER S.D. Agarwala, J. - In this petition. the petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court. Ghaziabad, dated 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 traders 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. 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 star application and it was agreed 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 stagy 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 time 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 as well as in other petitions. 4. On an analysis of the petitions, which are before me. 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 as well as in other petitions. 4. On an analysis of the petitions, which are before me. I find that the appointments of nine Presiding Officers have been challenged. They are Sarvsri P. C. Kulshrestha, M. Ahsan. A.P. Trivedi. S.P. Singh. J. K. Sriastava., A.B. Karidhal. H. G. Slather. G.N. Nigam Mathur and R. K. Goel. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners who wanted to make their submissions in support of their petitions in the sets petitions, those cognizable by the single Judge and those cognizable by the Division Bench. In the regard to those cognizable by the Division Bench, I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of continuance of the interm orders passed by this Courts. Similarly, I have heard the learned counsel for the opposite parties, which are cognizable by a single judge and also the counsel for the opposite parties on the question of stay matter in regard to those petitions cognizable by the Division Bench. 6. Primarily, the dispute in the petitions is between the employers and their workmen. but since the validity of the app ointments of the Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh was challenged, the counter- affidavits were filed on behalf of the State Government. During the hearing of the petitions. I directed the Standing Counsel Sri D.S. Sinha, who was assisted the Court throughout the hearing of these petitions, to produce the relevant records in regard to the appointments of the Presiding Officers of the Labour Court before this Court for perusal. The learned Standing Counsel did produce the relevant records after great difficulty and search. All these records were kept for inspection in Court for a number of days so that the petitioners may give a reply in the light of those records and also to make submissions on the said basis. 7. On behalf of the State, the learned Advocate General appeared, assisted by Sri D.S. Sinha. Standing Counsel. All these records were kept for inspection in Court for a number of days so that the petitioners may give a reply in the light of those records and also to make submissions on the said basis. 7. On behalf of the State, the learned Advocate General appeared, assisted by Sri D.S. Sinha. Standing Counsel. I must record my appreciation for the ability with which Sri D. S. Sinha, in spite of difficulties, gave materials to this Court and also filed replies from time to time to the various averments made in the petitions in order to justify the appointments of the Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts. The hearing of the petition was delayed due to non-production of the records at the initial stages of the hearing, but ultimately. efforts of the learned Standing Counsel resulted in the production of the entire relevant records in order to enable the Court to decide on this vital question. 8. Learned Standing Counsel stated that out of the nine Presiding Officers, mentioned abuse, whose appointments has been challenged, Sri M. Ahsan has died. Sri A. P. Trivedi has retired. Sri J. K. Srivastava has gone back to the Department of Labour Sri R. G. Mathur and Sri G. N. Nigam have also gone back to the Department of Labour and Sri R.K. Goel has retired, but since in the various petitions, the appointments of these persons have been challenged and challenge has also been made to the awards given by them. I am also considering the validity of their appointments. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners have raised many contention, challenging the validity of the appointments of the above mentioned Presiding Officers. I will consider the contentions raised by, all the learned counsel for the petitioners together seriatim. 10. Before considering the various contentious, it is necessary to mention that a detailed counter-affidavit of Sri Kamla Kant. Joint Secretary to the Govt. in the Labour Department, has been filed in Civil Misc. Writ No. 12901 of 1981., M/s. Heatly and Gresham (India) Limited, Ghaziabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh. In the counter-affidavit filed in this petition. a reference was made to this counter-' affidavit. Joint Secretary to the Govt. in the Labour Department, has been filed in Civil Misc. Writ No. 12901 of 1981., M/s. Heatly and Gresham (India) Limited, Ghaziabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh. In the counter-affidavit filed in this petition. a reference was made to this counter-' affidavit. In order to enable all the petitioners to file a reply, if any to the counter-affidavit of Sri Kamla Kant, I directed the learned Standing Counsel to give copies of this counter-affidavit to all the learned counsel for the petitioners so that in case they wanted to reply to any averment made in the said counter-affidavit, they may be able to do so and they may also be able to formulate their submissions on the basis of the said counter-affidavit. 11. During the continuance of the hearing, supplementary counter- affidavit was filed on behalf of the State (of Sri Krishna, an Upper Division Assistant in the U. P. Civil Secretariat (Labour) IV, Lucknow. Copies of this supplementary counter-affidavit were also filed and supplied to all the learned counsel for the petitioners. Besides these two replies on behalf of the State Government, as I have already mentioned above, the entire original record was produced before this Court, which had been kept open for inspection. 12. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that under S. 4A (3). of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the qualifications of the persons, who could be appointed as Presiding Officers of a Labour Court, have been enumerated in sub-cls. (a) to (e) of sub-section (3) of S. 4A, and no person other than those having the qualifications, mentioned in sub-cls. (a) to (d) could be appointed as Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, as, according to the learned counsel, sub-clause (e) of sub-section (3) contemplates of a list of those persons only who had qualifications, as mentioned in sub- cis. (a) to (d). 13. (a) to (d) could be appointed as Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, as, according to the learned counsel, sub-clause (e) of sub-section (3) contemplates of a list of those persons only who had qualifications, as mentioned in sub- cis. (a) to (d). 13. The second contention in this regard of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that sub-clause (e) of sub-section (3) is only a procedural clause and is not a substantive clause and, consequently, if sub-clause (e) is taken to be a substantive clause then it would be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution, as thereby essential legislative functions would be deemed to have been delegated to the Executive in preparing a list for the purpose of appointment of the Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts. 14. In regard to S. 4-A of the Act, a third contention was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that if sub-clause (e) is taken to be a qualification for appointment then the result would be that cases of different persons will be heard and decided by some Presiding Officers who have judicial experience and others by those who do not have judicial experience and, as such, the provisions of S. 4-A (3) of the Act are also hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. 15. Since all the three above contentions depend upon the interpretation of S. 4-A of the Act, I am considering all these three contentions together. 16. In order to appreciate the legislative intent in the enactment of S. 4-A of the Act, it is necessary to consider the legislative history in regard to this provision. In the Act, as originally enacted in the year 1947, being U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (U. P. Act No. 28 of 1947), S. 4 provided for specification of matters for adjudication. Under S. 3 (d) of the Act, the Provincial Government was given the power to refer any industrial dispute for conciliation or adjudication in the manner provided in the order. S. 4, which is relevant, is quoted below :- "4. Under S. 3 (d) of the Act, the Provincial Government was given the power to refer any industrial dispute for conciliation or adjudication in the manner provided in the order. S. 4, which is relevant, is quoted below :- "4. Specification of matters for adjudication : An order made under S. 3, referring an industrial dispute for adjudication shall specify, as far as may be practicable, the matters upon which adjudication is necessary or desired Provided that - (i) the Provincial Government may by its own motion, or at the instance of an adjudicating authority, add to, amend or vary the matters so specified. (ii) the provincial Government may, with a view to specifying the said matter direct the adjudicating authority to make a preliminary inquiry into the nature of the dispute, and postpone specification for such time as may reasonably be required." 17. The Act was amended in the year 1957 copiously and practically a new procedure was laid down for the purpose of adjudication of disputes. These amendments were brought about by the U. P. Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1956 (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1957). By this Act, S. 4 of the original Act was deleted and, thereafter, new Sections 4-A to 4-K were inserted. These provisions were inserted because Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals were constituted under the U. P. Act. S. 4-A (3), which was inserted and which is relevant for the purposes of this case, is quoted below : "4-A (3). A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Presiding Officer of a Labour Court unless ;- (a) he has held any judicial office in India for not less than seven years; or (b) he is enrolled in the list prepared under S. 4-D." 18. S. 4-C provided for disqualifications for the Presiding Officers of the Labour Court or the Tribunal S. 4-D, contemplated list of persons for appointment as Presiding Officers of the Labour Court and Tribunals. S. 4-E laid down the constitution of the Committee, which would prepare the list under S. 4-D. S. 4-E (2) and (3), which are relevant. are also quoted below : "4-E (2). The Committee constituted under sub-section (1) shall, in the manner prescribed, prepare the lists referred to in S. 4-D. having regard : (a) in the case of the list referred to in cl. are also quoted below : "4-E (2). The Committee constituted under sub-section (1) shall, in the manner prescribed, prepare the lists referred to in S. 4-D. having regard : (a) in the case of the list referred to in cl. (i) of the said section to the education and practical experience of the person in matters relating to Labour and Industry, and (b) in the case of the list referred to in cl. (ii) thereof, also to special knowledge of the person in those matters. (3) No person who is not or who has not been a member of the Indian Administrative Service or the State Higher Judicial Service, or the State Judicial Service, or the State Labour Service shall be eligible for enrolment in the lists prepared under sub-section (2)." 19. From this amendment of 1957, it is clear that only two categories of persons could be appointed as Presiding Officers of the Labour Court; Firstly, those who held judicial office in India for not less than seven years or those who are enrolled in the list prepared under S. 4-D. If the list, which was to he prepared under cl. (b) was not treated to be an independent qualification, then it was not necessary for the Legislature to have enacted S. 4-E (3) where it has been laid down that no person who is not or who has not been a member of the Indian Administrative Service or the State Higher Judicial Service, or the State Judicial Service, or the State Labour Service shall be eligible. Sub Cl. (3) of section 4, clearly contemplated appointment of a person as the Presiding Officer of a Labour Court even from those who are members of the Indian Administrative Service or the State Labour Service and not only of those persons who are members of the Judicial Service. In my opinion, therefore, the list, which was to be prepared under S. 4A (3) (b) was to be a list of those persons other than those contemplated under Cl. (a). In my opinion, therefore, the list, which was to be prepared under S. 4A (3) (b) was to be a list of those persons other than those contemplated under Cl. (a). This intention 61 the Legislature is further indicated from the fact that it was also laid down that only those persons could be included in the list from the Indian Administrative Service as well as from the State Labour Service who had the education and practical experience in matters relating to labour and industry and also had special knowledge in regard to labour and industry. 20. After the 1957 amendment, the U. P. Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1966 (U.P. Act No. II of 1966) brought out further amendments in S. 4-A of the Act as well as in Sections 4B and 4-E. By means of the amendment now, the earlier cis. (a) and (b) were re-numbered as cls. (d) and (e) of sub- sec. (3) and three new sub-cls. (a), (b) and (c) were added. The amendment of Sections 4-B and 4-E is not relevant for this case. The ultimate effect of the 1966 Act was that now S. 4A (3) contained five categories of persons, who could be appointed as Presiding Officers of the Labour Court. 21. This Act was further amended in the year 1978 by the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1978 (U. P. Act No. 34 of 1978). By this Amending Act, in sub-section (3) of S. 4E, for the words "or the State Judicial Service, or the State Labour Service", the words "or the Uttar Pradesh Nyayik Sewa or the State Labour Service or who is not or who has not been such member of the State Civil Service (Executive Branch) as has experience of working for at least three years in the Labour Department of the State" were substituted. The above amendment was brought about with a view to also include in the list prepared under S. 4-A (3)." members of the State Civil Service (Executive Branch). The present section, which is up for interpretation before me, therefore now after the various amendments, contains sub- cls. (a) to (e) of sub-section (3) of S. 4-A. On a perusal of sub-cls. The present section, which is up for interpretation before me, therefore now after the various amendments, contains sub- cls. (a) to (e) of sub-section (3) of S. 4-A. On a perusal of sub-cls. (a) to (d), it is clear that in none of the sub-clauses, a person, who is a member of the Indian Administrative service or a member of the State (ii) Civil Service (Executive Branch) is included. It cannot, therefore. he said that sub-clause (c) of sub-sec (3) that is only a procedural section and it can only contain names of those persons, who possessed qualifications, mentioned in sub-cls. (a) to (d). If this interpretation is accepted then the result would be that sub slc. (3) of S. 4-E would become redundant. It would not be possible then to appoint Presiding Officers of the Labour Court, who arc members of the Indian Administrative Service or who are members of the State Labour Service or members of the State Civil Service (Executive Branch). 22. It is an elementary rule of construction that the provisions of the Act are to be harmoniously construed so, as to resolve the conflict, if ans. in the various sections and also advance the legislative intent. From the legislative history. It is apparent that the Legislature intended to have persons who held judicial office in India for not less than seven years and also persons other than those w ho had experience of labour matters and who are enrolled in the list prepared under sub cl. (e). The Committee, which was to prepare this list. is a high powered committee. which could consider the education and practical experience of the persons in these matters relating to labour and industry and also to the special knowledge of that person and then to include in the list. It Has not the legislative intent to exclude all these persons, as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 23. By the amendments 1975 and 1966 only further categories of qualified persons were added by the Legislature, but, at the same time. it did contemplate persons being appointed as Presiding Officers of the Labour Court besides those which had been enumerated in sub-cis. (a) to (d) of sub sec. (3) of S. 4-A of the Act. In the circumstances. 23. By the amendments 1975 and 1966 only further categories of qualified persons were added by the Legislature, but, at the same time. it did contemplate persons being appointed as Presiding Officers of the Labour Court besides those which had been enumerated in sub-cis. (a) to (d) of sub sec. (3) of S. 4-A of the Act. In the circumstances. I cannot accept the first contention raised the learned counsel for the petitioners that the persons, who would he enrolled in sub-clause (e). must be persons having qualifications mentioned in sub' cls. (a) to (d) of sub-section 13) of S. 4-A of the Act. This view of mine is further fortified by the fact that after each clause. the word or, has been used. Each clause consequently has been treated by the Legislature to be a separate qualification. As urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is not possible for me to read 'or' as 'and' after cl. (d), as this would defeat the legislative intent and the purpose for which S. 4-E (3) has been enacted. 24. sub-clause (e) of sub-section (3) of S. 4.A of the Act speaks of a preparation of list under S. 4-D of the Act. The Committee, which would prepare the list, has been constituted under S. 4-E. It is a high power Committee consisting of a Chairman, who is or has been a Judge of the High Court. The members of the Committee are the Chief Secretary. the Secretary in the Labour Department, the Labour Commissioner, the Legal Remembrancer and a person, who is or has been a member of the Public Service Commission. The qualifications of the persons who would be included by the Committee in the list have also been categorically stated in the sub-secs. (2) and (3) of S. 4-E of the Act. The position, therefore. is that the list has to be prepared by a Committee constituted under the Act, having qualifications mentioned by the Act.' All the necessary guidelines have been prescribed by the Legislature from which it selection has to be made while preparing the list. It cannot, therefore, be said that Sub- cl. (e) of sub-section (3) of S. 4-A of the Act is purely a procedural section and that essential legislative functions have been delegated to the Executive. It cannot, therefore, be said that Sub- cl. (e) of sub-section (3) of S. 4-A of the Act is purely a procedural section and that essential legislative functions have been delegated to the Executive. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners to this effect also cannot he accepted. 25. Under S. 4-A of the Act, the State Government has been given the power to constitute one or more Labour Courts. The Presiding Officer has to be a person who has the qualifications mentioned in sub-section (3) of S. 4-A of the Act. In the circumstances, all persons, who have the right to approach the Labour Court. seek a decision from a person who has been appointed as a Presiding Officer in the Labour Court , as such, there is no discrimination, as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. If a person has held a judicial Office and is appointed a Presiding Officer of a Labour Court, then all those cases, which conic before him, will be decided by him. It cannot be said that the cases which come under the jurisdiction of one Labour Court are icing decided by different persons, being bearing different qualifications. The plea of discrimination. consequently, is without any foundation. 26. There is another aspect of the matter. Once any person is appointed as a Presiding Officer of a Labour Court, possessing any of the qualifications, mentioned in sub-cls. (a) to (c) of sub sec. (3) of S. 4-A of the Act then the matter referred to any of the Presiding Officers is to one class only and in this view of the matter also, there is no discrimination between one case and another. The argument raised to this effect is wholly fallacious. 27. The fourth contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no meeting was held. as contemplated by S. 4-E of the Act and no list was prepared, as contemplated by S. 4-D of the Act. This argument of the petitioner is also not tenable. The records have been produced which clearly show that on 28th Feb. 1978, a meeting of the Committee under section 4E of the Act was held under the Chairmanship of of Mr. Justice J. K. Tandon, retired Judge of this Court, and the Committee prepared the list in this list. This argument of the petitioner is also not tenable. The records have been produced which clearly show that on 28th Feb. 1978, a meeting of the Committee under section 4E of the Act was held under the Chairmanship of of Mr. Justice J. K. Tandon, retired Judge of this Court, and the Committee prepared the list in this list. I find the- names of Sarvsri A P. Trivedi, G.N. Nigam, R.G. Mathur and A.B. Karidhal. 28. Another meeting as held on 18th Apr. 1979, under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice Umesh Chandra Srivastava under S. 4-F of the Act. In the list prepared by this Committee, I find the names of Sarvsri Mohammad Ahsan and R. K. Goel. 29. Thereafter. another meeting of the Committee under S. 4-F of the Act took place on 30th Dec., 1980 under the Chairmanship of Justice Umesh Chandra Srivastava. In the list prepared by this Committee, I find the names of Sarvsri P. C. Kulshreshtha, J.K. Srivastava and S.P Singh. It is, therefore, clear from the record that the Committee was constituted. as contemplated under S. 4-F of the Act. The Committee considered the cases of all the persons and, thereafter, in accordance with the principles laid down under the Act, included the names of persons in the list having qualifications, as contemplated by sub-section 13t of S. 4-A of the Act. The selection of the Presiding Officer, from this list was, therefore, a valid selection. All the persons whose appointments have been challenged had been enrolled in the list prepared under S. 4-D of the Act. This contention, therefore, of the learned counsel for the petitioners is wholly without an foundation and does not hear out from the record. 30. The fifth contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in regard to one officer was that since there is no power of transfer of one Presiding Officer of a Labour Court to Presiding Officer of a Labour Court the order of transfer is bad. This argument, in my opinion, is wholly fallacious. The order by which one Presiding Officer is asked to go to work as Presiding Officer, is, in fact, an order appointing the said person as a Presiding Officer of the said Court. This argument, in my opinion, is wholly fallacious. The order by which one Presiding Officer is asked to go to work as Presiding Officer, is, in fact, an order appointing the said person as a Presiding Officer of the said Court. I do not find any prohibition under the Act by virtue of which the power of the State Government has been taken away to transfer one Presiding Officer to work as Presiding Officer of another Court. By the order of transfer, the intention of the State Government was to appoint the said person as the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court to which he had been sent. 31. The sixth contention which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the appointment of persons as Presiding Officers of the Labour Court has not been gazetted. In regard to this contention, by section 4-A. the State Government has been empowered to constitute one or more Labour Courts for the adjudication of the industrial disputes relating to any matter specified in the First Schedule by notification in the Official Gazette. The labour courts, consequently, have to be constituted by means of a notification in the Official Gazette. This sub-sec, III of S. 4-A of the Act does not contemplate that every time, a person is appointed as a Presiding Officer, his appointment must be notified in the official Gazette. I do not find any such provision in the Act. As already stated, the provision is only for constitution of the Labour Court. These Labour Courts once constituted are permanent courts and various persons are appointed as Presiding Officers to the said constituted Courts from time to time. In this argument also. I do not find any substance. 32. The seventh contention of the petitioners is that the Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts are inferior to that of the District Judge and they should be deemed to be the members of the Judicial services and consequently their appointments should be made in accordance with Article 234 of the Constitution of India, and since the appointments have not been made in accordance with Article 234, the appointments are wholly invalid. Chapter VI of the Constitution of India deals with subordinate courts. Chapter VI of the Constitution of India deals with subordinate courts. Article 233 sub-clause (1) lays down that the appointments of persons to the post of District Judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State. Article 234 provides that the appointment 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 the 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. 33. Reliance has been placed in support of their submissions by the petitioners on Article 234 and it was urged that since Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts constitute 'judicial service', consequently the provisions of Article 234 should be complied with. 34. Article 236 (b) defines 'judicial service'. According to the definition 'judicial service' means a service consisting exclusively of persons intended to fill the post of district judge and other civil judicial posts inferior to the post of district judge. It is urged that 'civil judicial post' includes the Presiding officers of the Labour Court. 35. On a reading of Chap. VI of the Constitution it is apparent that it relates to the subordinate courts. The 'civil judicial posts' mentioned in the definition of the words judicial service' are those posts which are subordinate to the District Judge. It can by no stretch of imagination be said that the Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts are courts subordinate to the District Judges. There is no control whatsoever of the District Judge over the Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts. The Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts cannot therefore, come within the expression 'judicial service' as defined in Article 236 (b) of the Constitution of India. 36. The petitioners have submitted that since Labour Courts exercise judicial functions and are courts, therefore, the persons who preside over the said courts should be held to be members of the judicial service. This argument also, in my opinion, is wholly fallacious. 36. The petitioners have submitted that since Labour Courts exercise judicial functions and are courts, therefore, the persons who preside over the said courts should be held to be members of the judicial service. This argument also, in my opinion, is wholly fallacious. The mere fact that a particular tribunal or an authority exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions and in law they are called tribunals or courts does not by itself imply that the persons presiding over the said tribunal and courts should exclusively be members of the judicial service. In my opinion, the Presiding officers of the Labour Court do not come within the expression of judicial service as used in Article 236 (b) of the Constitution and as such Article 234 does not apply. 37. Great reliance has been placed by the petitioners on Labour Law Practitioners' Association v. State of Maharashtra (1979) 39 Fac LR 89. A learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court had held that since Labour Court has power to give definitive judgment which has finality and authoritativeness so as to bind the parties appearing before it and the source of the power of the Labour Court is a judicial power of the State given to the Labour Court by the statute itself, the Labour Courts consequently constitute the judicial service of the State. I do not agree with this decision given by the Bombay High Court. I have already held above that the mere fact that a particular court exercises judicial power or quasi judicial functions does not by itself mean that the persons who preside over the said courts or Tribunals should be members of the judicial service. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that the appointments are invalid as being violative of Article 234 of the Constitution is consequently devoid of merits. 38. The eighth contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no State Labour Service constituted by the State of U. P. and as such the appointments made from the officers of the labour department are wholly invalid. 39. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for the first time provided that the Conciliation Officer would be appointed under the Act to perform such duties as laid down under the Act. 39. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for the first time provided that the Conciliation Officer would be appointed under the Act to perform such duties as laid down under the Act. The U. P. Legislature also enacted the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act 28 of 1947 which received the assent of the Governor General on Dec. 21, 1947 but there was no provision for appointment of Conciliation Officer under the U. P. Act. By U. P. Act 1 of 1957 exhaustive amendments were brought about under the U. P. Act and now Conciliation Officers were appointed under S. 4-F of the Act. The State was authorised by notification under the official gazette to appoint such number of persons as it thinks fit, to be Conciliation Officers, charged with the duty of mediating in, and promoting the settlement of industrial disputes, in the manner to be prescribed. The State Government was further empowered to appoint Conciliation Officers for specified area or areas. These officers were appointed in the labour department. In paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit of Kamla Kant Pandey of which reference has been made above, it has been stated that the post of Conciliation Officer is a part of the State Labour Service Class II of the labour department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. It has been further stated that the posts of Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Deputy Labour Commissioner form parts of the U. P. State Labour Service Class I in the labour department. 40. The petitioners have, however, urged that in law it is necessary that the State Labour Services should have been created by a specific Act or Rules and since there is no specific Act or Rules creating the State Labour Services, then it cannot he treated as service in the eve of law. 41. Article 154 sub-cl (1) of the Constitution states that the "executive power of the State shall be vested in the Governor and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with this Constitution." Entry 41 of list II of Sch. VII empowers the legislature of any State to make laws with respect to State Public Services and State Public Service Commission. 42. Article 309 further empowers the State Legislature to regulate the recruitment, and condition of service of persons appointed, to public services and posts in connection with the State. VII empowers the legislature of any State to make laws with respect to State Public Services and State Public Service Commission. 42. Article 309 further empowers the State Legislature to regulate the recruitment, and condition of service of persons appointed, to public services and posts in connection with the State. On a reading of the various provisions of the Constitution it is apparent that there is no specific provision that every service must be created by an Act and must also have the rules before it can be called a service. Article 154 vests the executive power of the State in the Governor and the Governor has been authorised to exercise the executive power either directly or through officers subordinate to him. The governor, therefore, can appoint persons in order to carry out the functions which have to be done by certain officers under various Acts. 43. It was under this power that, since the Indistrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thereafter the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as amended by U. P. Act 1 of 1957 contemplated the appointments of the Conciliation Officers, the officers were appointed in the labour department of the State. Annexure CA-1 to the counter- affidavit of Kamla Kant Pandey is dated 9th January, 1953 and the appointment of certain persons were made by this order in the State Service Class II in the labour department. Annexure CA-2 to the said counter-affidavit is the order of the Government dated 25-1-1960 which further shows that the rules applicable to State Industries Services Class II where also to be applicable to Labour Class II Services of the labour department. From D. O. No. 19031/E dated 18-12-1962 from the labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh to the Deputy Secretary, Labour Department, Lucknow it is clear that even prior to 1962 Class II Officers in the Labour department were ultimately came to be known as members of the State Labour Service Class II (scale Rs. 250-850). Para. 2 of the said letter is quoted below to show that as far back as in 1962 State Labour Service existed : "2. State Labour Service Class-II (Scale Rs. 250-850). The Ayog have suggested that recruitment to the posts of Conciliation Officers and La hour Officers in the Labour Department should be made through the combined competitive examination for recruitment to the other State services. State Labour Service Class-II (Scale Rs. 250-850). The Ayog have suggested that recruitment to the posts of Conciliation Officers and La hour Officers in the Labour Department should be made through the combined competitive examination for recruitment to the other State services. There are the following other posts in the State Labour. Service Class II in the same scale of pay - (a) Dy. Chief Inspector of Shops and Commercial Establishment. (b) Standing Orders Officers (c) Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions. (d) Trade Union Inspector". I suggest that all these posts excepting the Inspector of Shops and Commercial post of Labour Officer (Statistics) may also be filled up through the same competitive Deputy Registrar of Trade examination. However, considering that - basic knowledge of Economics, which has been kept an essential qualification for appointment to these posts, is very necessary to enable these officers to perform their duties in a reasonably satisfactory manner, I suggest that the candidates who offer themselves for these posts should be required to offer at least two of the following four optional subjects prescribed in the syllabus for the combined examination only :- (a) Economics (b) Public Economics (c) Commerce (d) Statistics (each carry 100 marks) 44. Thereafter the record contains the proceedings of the meeting held on 22-12- 1962 under the Chairmanship of the Chairman, Public Service Commission. Uttar Pradesh. From these proceedings it is clear that prior to 22-12-62 when the meeting took place selection to the posts of the State Labour Sera ices were made on the basis of interview and it was thereafter suggested that the recruitment to these posts be made on the basis of a combined competitive examination. (iii) of the first resolution in the said meeting is quoted below : - ...(iii). It was also agreed that recruitment to the following services may he made on the basis of the above mentioned competitive examination : 1. U. P. Jails Executive (Superintendents Jails) Service. 2. U. P. Co-operative Service (Assistant Registrars). 3. U. P. Industries Service ( District Industries Officers). 4. U. P. Cane Service (Assistant, Cane Commissioners and Sugar Cane Inspectors). 5. U. P. Agriculture Service ( District Agriculture Officers). 6. State Employment Service (Sub- Regional Employment Officers, Employment Liaison Officers, Employment Market Information Officers, and Regional Vocation Guidance Officers.) 7. 2. U. P. Co-operative Service (Assistant Registrars). 3. U. P. Industries Service ( District Industries Officers). 4. U. P. Cane Service (Assistant, Cane Commissioners and Sugar Cane Inspectors). 5. U. P. Agriculture Service ( District Agriculture Officers). 6. State Employment Service (Sub- Regional Employment Officers, Employment Liaison Officers, Employment Market Information Officers, and Regional Vocation Guidance Officers.) 7. State Labour Service (Conciliation Officers, Labour Officers, Deputy Chief Inspector of Shops and Commercial Establishments, Standing Orders Officers, Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions and Trade Union Inspectors). 45. Thereafter correspondence went on between various departments of the State and Public Service Commission and ultimately two resolutions of the meeting dated 22nd December. 1962 were accepted by the State of U. P. and an office memorandum dated 29-11-1966 was issued by the State of U. P. The said office memorandum, which would show that there was in existence a State Labour Service. is quoted below :- "GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH APPOINTMENT (B) DEPARTMENT No. 10-2-66- Apptt. (B). Dated Lucknow : November 29, 1666. OFFICE MEMORANDUM The undersigned is directed to say that at the meeting held on December 22. 1962 to consider the proposal for the combination of the examinations for recruitment to various State and Subordinate Services within the purview of the Ayog. it was inter alia agreed that recruitment to the State Services mentioned below should be made on the basis of the combined competitive examination : (1) Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Executive Branch). (2) Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (3) Uttar Pradesh Judicial Officers Service. (4) Superior Forest Service. (5) Uttar Pradesh Jail Executive (Superintendent of Jails) Service. (6) Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Service (Assistant Registrars). (7) Uttar Pradesh Industries Service (District Industries Officer Grade I) (8) Uttar Pradesh Cane Service (Assistant Cane Commissioners and Sugarcane Inspectors) (9) Uttar Pradesh Agriculture Service (District Agriculture Officers). (10) State Employment Services (Sub-Regional Employment Officers, Employment Liaison Officers, Employment Market Information Officers and Regional Vocation Guidance Officers) (11) State Labour Service (Conciliation Officers, Labour Officers, Deputy Chief Inspectors of Shops and Commercial Establishments, Standing Orders Officers. Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions. Trade Union Inspectors; (12) Assistant Welfare Officers. (13) Assistant Registrars of Trade Unions. (14) Assistant Labour Welfare Officers. (15) Uttar Pradesh Education Service District Inspectors of Schools. Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions. Trade Union Inspectors; (12) Assistant Welfare Officers. (13) Assistant Registrars of Trade Unions. (14) Assistant Labour Welfare Officers. (15) Uttar Pradesh Education Service District Inspectors of Schools. Besides the above services, it appears that a combined Competitive examination is being held by the Ayog for Recruitment to the following services: (1) Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Executive Branch). (2) Uttar Pradesh Police Service. (3) Uttar Pradesh Finance & Accounts Service (4) Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Service (5) Regional Audit Services under the Co-operative and Panchayat Audit Organization, Uttar Pradesh. (6) Posts of Assistant Regional Transport Officers in the Transport Organization, Uttar Pradesh. (7) Post of Assistant General Manager, Uttar Pradesh Government Roadways in the Transport Organization. 2. So far as Appointment (b) Departments are concerned the decision has already been taken that the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Judicial Branch) and Judicial Officers Services, cannot be included in the combined competitive Examination for the State Services. It is not clear what final decision has been taken by the departments concerned with other services, the departments concerned are, therefore, requested to intimate the present position as regards the proposal for holding combined competitive examination in respect of the State services which they are concerned. 3. The position regarding amendment in the service rules on the basis of the decision taken at the meetings; held on Dec. 22, 1962 may also kindly be intimated in respect of the services mentioned above. Sd/- M. Zainuddin Sahayak Sachiv To Forest (A)/ Home(Jails)/Co-operative (A)/, Transport(A)/Industries (A)/Agriculture (B)/Labour (D)/Social Welfare and Education Departments". 46. From this office memorandum it is clear that there was at State Labour Service and similarly there were other services in existence, the name which was given to- these services depended upon the fact as to, in which department the post was created. The persons who were appointed in the labour department became the members of the State Labour Service. 47. From the above facts it is absolutely clear that there is in existence the State Labour Service, the method of recruitment has also been laid down and the Rules will be applicable to them have also been specified. The persons who were appointed in the labour department became the members of the State Labour Service. 47. From the above facts it is absolutely clear that there is in existence the State Labour Service, the method of recruitment has also been laid down and the Rules will be applicable to them have also been specified. It is further clear from the office memorandum dated June 9, 1961 that the posts of Assistant Labour Commissioner were also declared as forming it separate unit within the cadre of State Labour Service Class II and the seniority of the Assistant Labour Commissioners who were then in existence as determined accordingly. The Office memorandum dated June 9, 1961 is quoted below :- "OFFICE MEMORANDUM Consequent on declaring the posts of Assistant Labour Commissioner as forming a separate Unit within the cadre of State Labour service, Class II, the question of determining the inter se seniority of the Assistant Labour Commissioner had been under the consideration of Government. After inviting objections of the officers concerned, the matter has been carefully examined and Government have been pleased to determine the seniority of the officers in the Unit as under : Sl. No. Name of officer in order of seniority 1 Sri J. Prasad Asstt. Labour Commissioner at present officiating Deputy Labour Commissioner. 2 Sri S. P. Singh Assistant Labour Commissioner 3 Sri M. Ahsan Assistant Labour Commissioner 4 Sri P. Tewari Assistant Labour Commissioner Sd/- S. P. Pandey U. P. Sachiv No. 1474/XXXVI (B)-8/1960 Copy forwarded for information to the : (1) Labour Commissioner. U. P., Post Box No. 220, Kanpur (2) Officers concerned. By Order, (S. P. Pande) U. P. Sachiv". 48. Consequently I hold that there is in existence State Labour Service and the argument of the petitioners that there is no State Labour Service is wholly without foundation. 49. The respondents. however, raised one contention in particular in regard to the validity of the appointment of Sri P. C. Kulshreshtha. In the supplementary counter-affidavit of Shri Krishna in para 5 it has been stated that Shri Kulshreshtha functioned as Presiding Officer. Labour Court, Agra during the period 23rd Oct. 1970 to 27th Oct, 1974. This appointment had been made by notification dated 14th Oct. 1970. It has been further stated that by notification dated 27th Jan. In the supplementary counter-affidavit of Shri Krishna in para 5 it has been stated that Shri Kulshreshtha functioned as Presiding Officer. Labour Court, Agra during the period 23rd Oct. 1970 to 27th Oct, 1974. This appointment had been made by notification dated 14th Oct. 1970. It has been further stated that by notification dated 27th Jan. 1981 Shri Kulshreshtha was again appointed to function as Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Gorakhpur where he worked from 24th Jan, 1981 to 31st Jan. 1981. He was thereafter transferred as Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ghaziabad vide notification dated 16-2-81 and there he took charge of the office of Presiding Officer, Ghaziabad on 1-2-1981 and as such Shri P. C. Kulshreshtha has functioned as a Presiding Officer of the Labour Court for more than six years. The argument of the respondents on the basis of these facts is that so far as P. C. Kulshreshtha is concerned, his appointment is valid even under S. 4-(A)(3)(c) of the Act as he has worked as a Presiding Officer of the Labour Courts in the State of U. P. for not less than five years. These facts are undisputed and consequently so far as Sri P. C. Kul shreshtha is concerned, his appointment is a valid appointment under the above section. 50. There is one other aspect of the matter. Even if on 1-2-1981 when Shri P. C. Kulshreshtha was appointed as Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ghaziabad he did not complete five years but then thereafter he did complete his five years and now an appointment which may have been invalid has been validated by passage of time. Reliance in this connection has been placed on the Full decision of this Court in Hari Shankar Prasad Gupta v. Sukhdeo Prasad, AIR 1954 All 227 . In this case Sukhdeo Prasad a practising Advocate was appointed as a Member of the Election Tribunal. The Full Bench took the view that even if Sukhdeo Prasad was not qualified on the date of his appointment, he was qualified on the date when the matter came up for hearing before the Court and as such the Full Bench declined to hold that the Election Tribunal was not properly constituted. The principle laid down in the said case is fully applicable in the facts of the present case. The principle laid down in the said case is fully applicable in the facts of the present case. Even if Shri P. C. Kulshreshtha did not complete his five years as a Presiding Officer of the Labour Court when he was appointed as the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court at Ghaziabad but after functioning for some time when his appointment was not challenged at all, he completed his five years as a Presiding Officer. In this view of the matter it would not be a case where the appointment of Shri P. C. Kulshreshtha could be declared to be invalid as now he is clearly a validly appointed officer under S. 4-A (3)(e) of the Act. 51. From the office memorandum dated 29-11-1966 it is clear that the State Labour Service consists of Conciliation Officers, Labour Officers, Deputy Chief Inspectors of Shops and Commercial Establishments, Standing Orders Officer, Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions, and Trade Union Inspectors. It is further clear from the Office memorandum dated 9th June, 1961 that the Assistant Labour Commissioner also forms a separate unit within the cadre of State Labour Service. 52. In the affidavit of Shri Krishna it has been clearly stated that Shri P. C. Kulshreshtha, Sri M. Ahsan, Sri A. P. Trivedi, Shri J. K. Srivastava, Sri S. P. Singh, Sri A. B. Karidhal, Sri R. G. Mathur and Sri G. N. Nigam had worked as Conciliation Officers as well as Assistant Labour Commissioners. Therefore, they clearly belong to the State Labour Service. Their names have already been included in the list by the Committee. So far as Sri R. K. Goel is concerned, he is from Indian Administrative Service and his name also finds place in the list prepared by the Committee. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the appointment of all the nine Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts whose appointments have been impugned in this petition and other connected petitions are valid in law. 53. In the instant case the appointment of Sri P. C. Kulshreshtha has been challenged. I accordingly hold that Shri P. C. Kulshreshtha was validly appointed as Presiding Officer of the Labour Court.