Registrars of Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts are entitled to pay parity with District Court Sheristadars.

The Petitioner, serving as the Registrar of the Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati, challenged a government communication dated 20.01.2023.

This communication denied the enhancement of his Grade Pay to be at par with Sheristadars (Chief Administrative Officers) of District and Sessions Judges' establishments.

Historically, the post of Registrar was created with scales higher than or comparable to ministerial staff.

Following the Shetty Commission recommendations and subsequent Supreme Court orders in All India Judges Association, the Assam Government implemented pay revisions for subordinate court staff effective 01.04.2003.

While these benefits were extended to all ministerial staff in Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts via a 2012 notification, the Registrars were excluded.

A High Court Committee recommended parity in 2012, but the Finance Department rejected it, claiming Registrars were not covered by the Shetty Commission and fell under the Labour Department’s purview.

1. Whether the Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts fall within the definition of "Subordinate Judiciary" under the administrative control of the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution.

2. Whether the post of Registrar of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court is entitled to parity in pay scale and Grade Pay with the Chief Administrative Officer (Sheristadar) of the District Judiciary.

3. Whether the Finance Department has the competence to override the High Court's recommendation regarding the status and parity of ministerial staff within the Subordinate Courts.

Article 235 of the Constitution, which vests "control" over subordinate courts and their ministerial staff in the High Court.

State of Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practitioners' Association, establishing that Labour/Industrial Court judges belong to the "judicial service" and these tribunals are part of the West specialized hierarchy of District Courts.

Principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work under Articles 14 and 16, supported by State of Kerala v. V. Renjith Kumar, which held that qualitative similarity in functions overrides differences in the source of recruitment or appointment.

All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2024), reaffirming that pay revisions must extend to specialized tribunals regardless of whether they are presided over by career judicial officers.

The Court found that although the Petitioner was appointed by the Labour Department, the Industrial Tribunals perform judicial functions and are subject to the High Court’s superintendence under Article 227 and "control" under Article 235.

A factual comparison showed that the Registrar’s duties (administration, supervising staff, issuing processes) are identical to, or exceed, those of a Sheristadar/Chief Administrative Officer (CAO).

The Court rejected the Finance Department's argument regarding different recruitment sources, noting that the State already granted parity to CAOs of Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACT), making the denial to Industrial Tribunal Registrars arbitrary and discriminatory.

Crucially, the Court held that since "control" is vested in the High Court to ensure judicial independence, the Finance Department cannot unilaterally reject parities determined by a High Court Committee approved by the Chief Justice.

The Court directed the State to grant the Petitioner a Scale of Pay and Grade Pay equivalent to the Chief Administrative Officer of the District Judge/MACT establishments, effective from the date such benefits were provided to CAOs.

Arrears are to be paid within six months, and compliance affidavits must be filed by the Registrar General and State Secretaries within eight months.