R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE question raised in this petition were considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of T. R. Mishra vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1990 (2) G. L. H. 506 and all contentions were negatived. One of us was a Member of that Bench. However in the light of the submissions made in this petition and in the light of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India reported in J. T. 1993 (5) S. C. 479 the view taken by that Division Bench requires serious re-consideration by a larger Bench. Hence Rule. Notice to learned Advocate General. ( 2 ) IN para 47 of the Division Bench judgment at page 530 the Division Bench had considered the apprehensions about the control of the Government over the labour judiciary. However the Division Bench had observed with emphasis that it is for the Legislature to take note of Article 50 of the Constitution of India and entrust the powers under the Industiral Disputes Act and the Bombay Industrial Relations Act to the judicial service of the State occurring in Chapter VI part VI of the Constitution and it was stated that earlier the better. It was also expressly emphasised that it would be better that the Legislature and Executive bestow their attention to put the Industrial Courts and Labour Courts under the State Judicial Service amenable to Articles 233 to 237 of the Constitution. The Division Bench also considered the view expressed by the Bombay High Court regarding separation and independence of Labour judiciary from the Government and made observations for implementing the Directive Principle of State Policy for separation of Labour Judiciary from the executive. This judgment was rendered four years ago. It appears that nothing has been done to implement that Directive Prinicple of State Policy enshrined in the Constitution to separate the Labour Judiciary and the observation made by the Division Bench of this Court. ( 3 ) IN the above SC case the Judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court held that not only independence of the judiciary is the basic structure of the Constitution the separation of judiciary is the necessary part of independence of judiciary. ( 3 ) IN the above SC case the Judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court held that not only independence of the judiciary is the basic structure of the Constitution the separation of judiciary is the necessary part of independence of judiciary. It is observed that the independence of judiciary had to be safeguarded not merely by providing security of tenure and other conditions of service after the appointment but also by preventing the influence of political considerations in making the appointments if left to the absolute discretion of the executive as the appointing authority. All the learned Judges of the Bench highlighted and laid stress on the basic principles and values underlying Article 50 in safeguarding the independence of the judiciary. ( 4 ) WHEN the validity of the Administrative Tribunals Act was challenged the Supreme Court has held that unless the Act is amended to provide for an effective role of the Supreme Court and High Court in the appointments to the Tribunal the Act would be vulnerable (S. P. Sampath Kumar vs. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 386 .) ( 5 ) IN the present case for appointment to the Labour Judiciary even consulation with the High Court is done away with by the State Amendment Act. Whether the State Legislature has competently amended the Central Act-Industrial Disputes Act. S. 7 ? would also be a question for consideration. Today the Labour Judiciary is wholly dependent on and controlled by the executive from everthing-creation of court selection appointment transfer promotion disciplinary action pension leave L. T. C. etc. It is neither independent nor separate. The question is whether it is Constitutional. ( 6 ) THE Office is directed to place this matter before the learned Chief Justice for placing the same before a larger Bench. In view of the importance of the matter the matter may be heard at the earliest. After such Bench is constituted and the matter is placed before it it would be open to the petitioners to move for interim relief. In view of the Division Bench judgment which is holding field it would not be proper for another Division Bench to pass any interim order contrary to the Division Bench judgment which holds the field. Matter Referred to Larger Bench. .