S. N. Variava ( 1 ) THIS petition seeks to challenge two Notifications both dated 8/08/1997. By these Notifications, certain posts in Labour Courts and in Industrial Tribunals havebeen declared to be "cadre posts" of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service. The challenge ison the ground that these Notifications violate the rights of persons who could otherwisehave been appointed as Presiding Officers of the Labour Court and Industrial Courts. It is submitted that now only persons who are Members of the Delhi Higher Judicialservice would become eligible to be appointed to these posts. ( 2 ) MS. Ahlawat, on behalf of the Delhi Administration, makes a statement thatpersons who would otherwise have been eligible to be appointed under Sections 7 and7 (A) will still continue to be eligible for appointment to these posts. In view of thisstatement, this challenge no longer survives. Even otherwise, it is clear that thenotification does not amend Sections 7 and 7 (A ). Thus even though these are made cadreposts, they are even now to be filled in from those mentioned in Sections 7 and 7 (A ). Thisnotification had to be issued because of circumstances mentioned in para3 of counteraffidavit of respondents 3,4 and 5 dated 19/07/1999. ( 3 ) IT is next submitted that under Section 7, the Officers can only adjudicate inrespect of labour disputes or in respect of any matters specified in the Second Scheduleto the Act. It is submitted that on certain occasions, these Officers are made to do otherwork like hearing bail applications, etc. It is submitted that there should be a directionthat no other work should be taken from these Officers. ( 4 ) THE Notifications in question themselves clarify, under Clauses 3 and 4. . that thework which is to be done by these Officers is only adjudication of disputes under theindustrial Disputes Act and any other matter specified under the Second Schedule. Theinstances which have been brought to our notice are only those when these Officers whowould otherwise have been on vacation. At such time they were asked to perform otherjudicial work. During that period, these Officers would in any case have not performedthe functions under these Acts. In these days of large volume of work and large delay,it is advisable that judicial work be got done from Officers who otherwise would not bedoing any judicial work. We, therefore, see no substance in this submission. During that period, these Officers would in any case have not performedthe functions under these Acts. In these days of large volume of work and large delay,it is advisable that judicial work be got done from Officers who otherwise would not bedoing any judicial work. We, therefore, see no substance in this submission. This prayer,therefore, stands rejected. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.