The Supreme Court's decision, which came on February 8, holds significance because it has upheld a historic judgment of the high court which had ordered that appointment of labour court judges, their transfer and promotions could not be done without consulting the high court since labour judges also were judicial officers.

Since the Constitution has enshrined an autonomous status to the judiciary, even appointment norms should be made in consultation with the high court, a division of the high court comprising Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justice M.H. Kadri had ruled in October last. This was after a public interest litigation filed by the Gujarat Rajya Kamdar Union and later by several others, including the Ahmedabad Labour Law Practitioners Association.

The litigation was filed after the GPSC finalised 13 candidates against the vacancy of 25 labour court judges, which has totally 40 labour courts. The GPSC had interviewed some 71 candidates who cleared the written test and selected 13 from them.

Though the advertisement for the posts had reserved seven posts for women, not a single woman was selected while some of them were actually senior practicising labour lawyers. The PIL had raised all these issues and also that the GPSC could not take unilateral decisions about appointment of judges.

The high court conceded the petitioners' contentions and asked the GPSC to do the interviews again in consultation with the high court. Later in January, the GPSC and 12 from the selected persons moved the Supreme Court against the high court order. A division bench of the apex court comprising Chief Justice S.K. Anand and Justice M. Srinivasan dismissed the appeals at the admissions stage and upheld the HC directive.