JUDGMENT AND ORDER : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. P. D. Nair, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. I have also heard Mr. H. K. Das, the learned Standing Counsel of the Gauhati High Court; Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Finance Department of the Government of Assam and Mr. R. K. Talukdar, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Accountant General. PREFACE 2. The Petitioner herein who is rendering services as Registrar of the Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated 20.01.2023 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Judicial Department to the Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts and the Industrial Tribunals of Assam inter alia intimating the latter, the denial of enhancement of Grade Pay of Registrars of the Industrial Tribunals and the Labour Courts to be at par with the Sheristadars of the District and Sessions Judges Establishment. The Petitioner further seeks for appropriate directions that the post of the Registrar, Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts of Assam should be brought at par with the Sheristadars of the District and Sessions Judges Establishment as approved and recommended by the Committee of the Gauhati High Court for consideration of the Shetty Commission's recommendations on revision of pay scale etc. of the Subordinate Courts staff of Assam, in the meeting held on 05.10.2012 w.e.f. the date of enhancement of the pay scale of the said Sheristadars, i.e. 01.04.2003 as provided in the Notification No.JDJ.147/2012/17 dated 30.07.2012 issued by the Legal Remembrancer and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Judicial Department. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ALONGWITH THE RESPECTIVE PLEADINGS 3. The posts of a Presiding Officers, Registrars and other staffs were sanctioned for different Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts in Assam by the Governor of Assam vide communications dated 20.05.1957, 22.07.1966 and 27.01.1981. 4. It is very pertinent at this stage to take note of the creation of the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court at Dibrugarh vide the communication dated 22.07.1966. The said document is a part of Annexure-1 Colly. A perusal of the said communication would show that for the Industrial Tribunal as well as for the Labour Court, at Dibrugarh posts were created with Scale of Pay. The said document is a part of Annexure-1 Colly. A perusal of the said communication would show that for the Industrial Tribunal as well as for the Labour Court, at Dibrugarh posts were created with Scale of Pay. The Scale of Pay for the posts of Presiding Officer and the Registrar being relevant is quoted herein under:- “Officer post with Scale of Pay. 1. Presiding Officer (One) in the Scale of Pay of Rs.1200-60-1300-(EB)-60-1500/- p.m. 2. Registrar (one) in the Scale of Pay of Rs.375-15-435-(EB)-20-575/- p.m.” 5. In the said communication, various staff posts were also created with Scale of Pay. These were the posts of the Stenographer, Upper Division Assistant, Lower Division Assistant, Typist, Grade-IV. The staff posts with the Scale of Pay as provided in the communication dated 22.07.1966 are reproduced herein under:- “Staff posts with Scale of Pay. 1. Stenographer (one) in the Scale of Pay of Rs.140-4-160-(EB)-4-190-5-225/- p.m. 2. Upper Division Asstt. (one) in the Scale of Pay of Rs.200-6-235-(EB)-8-300/- p.m. 3. Lower Divn. Asstt. (one) in the Scale of Pay of Rs.125-4-145-(EB)-4-165-(EB)-5-200/- p.m. 4. Typists (One) in the Scale of Pay of Rs. - do – 5. Grade IV (Five) in the Scale of Pay of Rs.80-1-90-2-100-2.50-115-3-130/- p.m. The allotment of Grade IV staff is as follows: Presiding Officer — Two Registrar — One Office — One Chowkidar — One” The above would show that the post of the Registrar was created with a higher Scale of Pay to that of the Stenographer. 6. Subsequent thereto, in the year 1981 and more particularly vide the communication dated 27.01.1981, posts were created for setting up the Industrial Tribunal at Silchar. A perusal of the said communication would show that the Scale of Pay for the post of Registrar was kept lower than that of the Stenographer Grade-I post. The posts as well as the respective Scale of Pay in respect to the various posts which were created vide the communication dated 27.01.1981 are reproduced herein under:- “2. Stenographer (Grade-I) - 1 (One) Post : Scale of Pay - Rs. 600-45-825-EB-50-1425/- P.M. 3. Registrar - 1 (One) Post : Rs. 525-25-700-EB-25-900/- P.M. 4. Upper Division Asstt. - 1 (One) Post : Rs. 375-15-480-EB-15-600/- P.M. 5. Lower Division Asstt. - 1 (One) Post : Rs. 275-9-320-EB-10-420-EB-11-475/- P.M. 6. Lower Division Asstt-cum Typist - 1 (One) Post : Rs. 275-9-320-EB-10-420-EB-11-475/- P.M. 7. 600-45-825-EB-50-1425/- P.M. 3. Registrar - 1 (One) Post : Rs. 525-25-700-EB-25-900/- P.M. 4. Upper Division Asstt. - 1 (One) Post : Rs. 375-15-480-EB-15-600/- P.M. 5. Lower Division Asstt. - 1 (One) Post : Rs. 275-9-320-EB-10-420-EB-11-475/- P.M. 6. Lower Division Asstt-cum Typist - 1 (One) Post : Rs. 275-9-320-EB-10-420-EB-11-475/- P.M. 7. Record Keeper - 1 (One) Post : Rs. 200-6-224-6-300/- P.M. 8. Peon - 4 (Four) Posts : Rs. 180-2-200-3-242-4-250/- P.M. 9. Chowkidar - 1 (One) Post : Rs. 180-2-200-3-242-4-250/- P.M.” 7. The Petitioner herein was appointed to officiate as the Registrar in the Industrial Tribunal in the Scale of Pay of Rs.1,785-3,700/- per month vide the Notification No.GLR.103/83/266 dated 19.09.1996 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam Labour and Employment Department. The Petitioner joined on 20.09.1996 as Registrar, Industrial Tribunal, Silchar. The records reveal that pursuant to appointment of the Petitioner as the Registrar, Industrial Tribunal, he had been rendering service since 20.09.1996 in the various Industrial Tribunals as well as the Labour Courts in the State of Assam since then and presently is working as the Registrar of the Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati w.e.f. 15.11.2017. 8. Before taking up the dispute in hand for adjudication, certain important aspects are required to be taken into account. 9. The Secretary to the Government of Assam, Labour and Employment Department had issued a communication dated 01.02.2006 to the various Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts as well as the Industrial Tribunals wherein it was mentioned that the Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts were Subordinate Judiciaries, and as such, they may be treated as exempted from the purview of the Finance (SIU) Department. Subsequent thereto, a communication was issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Judicial Department to the Registrar, Labour Court dated 23.08.2006 wherein it was mentioned that the Labour Court is performing judicial functions as a Court and hence Labour Courts have been held as subject to the High Court’s power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. It was further mentioned that the Labour Courts Judges can be held to belong to judicial service. 10. It is at this stage pertinent to mention that the First National Judicial Pay Commission, profoundly known as the Shetty Commission was set up under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Mr. It was further mentioned that the Labour Courts Judges can be held to belong to judicial service. 10. It is at this stage pertinent to mention that the First National Judicial Pay Commission, profoundly known as the Shetty Commission was set up under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty, a former Judge of the Supreme Court to inter alia examine the service conditions of the Court staff in each State and the Union Territory and make a report about the steps, if any, to be taken for improvement of such service conditions. The Commission (hereinafter referred to as, “the Shetty Commission”), after examining the issues before it, submitted its recommendation in the form of a report. Chapter XII of the said report, dealt with the post of Chief Administrative Officer. It was mentioned therein that the term “Chief Administrative Officer” would include the posts of Sheristadar, Registrar, Superintendent etc. It was inter alia 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 Courts Administration. The reason assigned was to maintain a smooth and effective administration since the person holding the post was the head of the Office Administration of the Court. 11. The recommendations of the Shetty Commission in respect to the post of the Chief Administrative Officer as contained in Chapter XII of the report being relevant, are reproduced herein under:- “OUR RECOMENDATIONS (i) Since this Officer, whether in Centralised or Decentralised System of Administration, looks after the entire administrative functions of all the Subordinate Courts in the District, it is appropriate that he be designated as Chief Administrative Officer. (ii) The post of Chief Administrative Officer be included in Group 'A' / Class-I. The pay scale of the post, as far as possible, may be the lowest pay scale admissible to that Group / Class. (iii) We, however, make it clear that the pay scale of CAO should be higher than the pay scale of all other staff working in the District Courts Administration. This has to be maintained to have smooth and effective administration, since CAO is the head of the Office Administration of the Courts.” 12. (iii) We, however, make it clear that the pay scale of CAO should be higher than the pay scale of all other staff working in the District Courts Administration. This has to be maintained to have smooth and effective administration, since CAO is the head of the Office Administration of the Courts.” 12. The Shetty Commission's recommendations which included various aspects were placed before the Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges Association and Others vs. Union of India, and the Supreme Court on 07.10.2009 passed the following order:- “UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER Impleadment applications are allowed. 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: 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 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. 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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. 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 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 observation that there was no recommendation of the Shetty Commission regarding Registrars of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals. It was mentioned that the Finance (EC-III) Department in turn had returned the proposal with the 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-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, 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 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 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. 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-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. 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 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 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 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 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. 34. Mr. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES. 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 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 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 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. 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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. 48. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 16. Liable for issuance of process and statements to High court and Government. 17. 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. 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 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. 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 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 executive influence, and as such, the Constitution of India has placed them on a pedestal different from other services under the State. 56. 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 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 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. 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 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. 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 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 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 “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 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. 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 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. 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 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 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. 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 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. 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 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. 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) 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 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. 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.” 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. 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 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 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:- 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 the equality principle enshrined in Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution. CONCLUSIONS 74. 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. (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. 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 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 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. (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 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.