ORDER : B.V. Nagarathna, J. - Government Order No. LAW 164 LCE 2014, dated January 22, 2015 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) is assailed in this writ petition. Initially, the writ petition was listed before a learned Single Judge, who, by his order dated June 6, 2015, has referred the matter to Division Bench, by holding that the writ petition raises questions of public interest and importance. 2. The first petitioner is All India Trade Union Congress, represented by its President, the second petitioner is Engineering and General Workers' Union, represented by its General Secretary and the third petitioner is Industrial Law Practitioners' Forum, represented by its Secretary. These petitioners have assailed the aforesaid Government Order, by which, the State Government has decided to empower all Principal District and Sessions Judges in the various Districts of the State, where there are no Labour Courts, to adjudicate industrial disputes, as specified in Second Schedule to the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act', for the sake of brevity). The said order lists the names of places where presently the Labour Courts are functioning and, also, bears a table containing the list of Courts, wherein jurisdiction to adjudicate labour disputes is to be transferred to the Principal District and Sessions Judges of those districts where presently there are no Labour Courts functioning. 3. The petitioners have assailed the said Government Order, by contending that under Section 7 of the Act, Labour Courts have to be constituted and the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts, which are so constituted under Section 7 of the Act, cannot be transferred to the Principal District and Sessions Judge of the particular districts. Elaborating the said contention, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, drew our attention to Section 7 of the Act and contended that section envisages constitution of one or more Labour Courts for adjudication of labour disputes relating to any matter specified in the Second Schedule to the Act and for performing such other functions, as may be assigned to them under the Act, and therefore, what is required under the said section is constitution of Labour Courts and not conferment of jurisdiction on a particular judicial officer of the District Court. He, therefore, contends that the present arrangement of having Labour Courts at nine different places whose jurisdiction is spread to other districts, where there are no Labour Courts, is a good arrangement and that the impugned Government Order disrupts this arrangement, and it is contrary to Section 7 of the Act. It is, also, contended that at present, Labour Courts in the State of Karnataka have been constituted, considering the number of cases arising under the Act and such other allied laws at specified places and that the Presiding Officers, who preside over such Courts bestow their attention to labour matters without being distracted by other subjects, but by the impugned order, if the Principal District and Sessions Judge of the District is entrusted with cases arising under the Act and allied laws, then, no special attention can be given to labour disputes. It is, also, contended that there may be only a few cases arising within a particular district and, therefore, importance may not be given to such litigation. Also, it would be easier for office bearers and representatives of Labour Unions to appear before Labour Courts having jurisdiction over one or more district/districts rather than traveling to different districts in order to attend to labour cases which would have an adverse impact on time, energy and resources at their disposal. It was also sought to be contended that even for practitioners engaged in labour matters concentration of work in the existing Labour Courts is more beneficial, rather than having matters disbursed at various District Headquarters. 4. Allaying the aforesaid apprehensions of the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the State, supported the impugned order and would contend that the object and purpose of the impugned order is to ensure that labour disputes are adjudicated within the district in which they arise, rather than the disputes being decided in another District Headquarter or in any other place. Supporting the impugned order, he contends that the apprehensions expressed by the petitioners are misplaced and that the impugned order would not call for any interference. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we have given our anxious consideration to their respective submissions. 6. Section 7 of the Act reads as under: "7. Labour Courts. Supporting the impugned order, he contends that the apprehensions expressed by the petitioners are misplaced and that the impugned order would not call for any interference. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we have given our anxious consideration to their respective submissions. 6. Section 7 of the Act reads as under: "7. Labour Courts. -(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Labour Courts for the adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter specified in the Second Schedule and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under this Act. (2) A Labour Court shall consist of one person only to be appointed by the appropriate Government. (3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Presiding Officer of a Labour Court, unless.- (a) he is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court; or (b) he has, for a period of not less than three years, been a District Judge or an Additional District Judge; or (c) ....... (d) he has held any Judicial Office in India for not less than seven years; or (e) he has been the Presiding Officer of a Labour Court constituted under any Provincial Act or State Act for not less than five years; (f) he is or has been a Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) or Joint Commissioner of the State Labour Department, having a degree in law and at least seven years' experience in the labour department including three years of experience as Conciliation Officer: Provided that no such Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner or Joint Labour Commissioner shall be appointed unless he resigns from the service of the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be, before being appointed as the Presiding Officer; or (g) he is an officer of Indian Legal Service in Grade III with three years' experience in the grade". Section 7 of the Act empowers the appropriate Government i.e. the State Government in the instant case, to constitute one or more Labour Courts for the adjudication of industrial disputes relating to matters specified in the Second Schedule to the Act and for performing such other functions that may be assigned. It is noted from the impugned order that presently Labour Courts are functioning at Bengaluru City, Dharwad, Belagavi, Mysuru, Dakshina Kannada (Mangaluru), Chikkamagaluru, Kalaburagi, Vijayapura and Kodagu-Madikeri. It is noted from the impugned order that presently Labour Courts are functioning at Bengaluru City, Dharwad, Belagavi, Mysuru, Dakshina Kannada (Mangaluru), Chikkamagaluru, Kalaburagi, Vijayapura and Kodagu-Madikeri. As of now, in the State of Karnataka, there are thirty Districts. The litigations arising under the Act and allied Acts from these thirty Districts ultimately have to be adjudicated by the Labour Courts which are situated at the aforesaid nine places. The State Government has thought it fit to decentralise the adjudication of labour disputes by empowering the Principal District and Sessions Judge of each district to adjudicate labour disputes, which arise from their respective district. The object and purpose of the Government Order is to avoid a Labour Court, which has been functioning in one district being asked to handle cases of two or three Districts at the same time. The conferment of power to adjudicate labour disputes to the Principal District and Sessions Judge of the particular district is nothing but constituting the said authority as a Labour Court. It is not necessary under Section 7 of the Act that Labour Court must be an exclusive Court for the purpose of adjudication of labour disputes. What is necessary is there must be an authority, which is empowered and competent to handle labour disputes and when the State Government has decided to decentralise the adjudication of labour matters within each district in respect of matters arising within that particular district, we do not find that such a decision taken by the State Government is unreasonable or opposed to any public interest or public policy. On the other hand, interests of justice would be sub-served by Courts within each district, adjudicating the labour disputes arising from that particular district, as there can be greater attention bestowed on the local or ground realities of that particular district. We, also, do not think that the labour unions or their representatives would not have any difficulty in representing before the Principal District and Sessions Judge of the District in respect of cases arising within the district. Rather, they would be benefitted, as they need not travel from one District Headquarters or any part of the district to another district, where the Labour Courts are presently situated, for the purpose of adjudication of their disputes. Thus, the Government Order is a step in the direction of access to justice or justice at the door step. 7. Rather, they would be benefitted, as they need not travel from one District Headquarters or any part of the district to another district, where the Labour Courts are presently situated, for the purpose of adjudication of their disputes. Thus, the Government Order is a step in the direction of access to justice or justice at the door step. 7. One other aspect needs clarification. The impugned order is dated January 22, 2015. During the course of submission, a doubt was expressed as to whether all cases, which are pending adjudication before the existing Labour Courts would have to be transferred to the Principal District and Sessions Judge of the respective districts or only those cases, which have been filed on or after January 22, 2015 would have to be transferred. In other words, learned Counsel for the petitioners sought clarification as to whether the impugned order was prospective or had a retrospective effect in respect of the cases filed and pending prior to January 22, 2015. On a plain reading of the impugned order, it becomes apparent that the said order is prospective in nature. That is, all cases filed on or after January 22, 2015 would have to be entrusted to the Principal District and Sessions Judges of each District Therefore, all cases filed prior to January 22, 2015 and pending before the existing Labour Courts would have to be disposed by those Courts. In other words, it is not necessary to transmit those cases from the existing Labour Courts to the respective Courts of Principal District and Sessions Judges of each District. 8. Subject to the aforesaid clarification, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 9. We do not find the impugned order to be unreasonable or illegal in any manner. There is no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed.