The Gauhati High Court has unequivocally affirmed that the posting and transfer of Registrars in Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals fall exclusively under the administrative control of the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution. This landmark ruling invalidates transfers initiated by the Labour Department and reasserts the constitutional separation between judicial and executive authority in subordinate court administration.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from the transfer of two officers - Smt. Polly Koch, Registrar, Labour Court, Guwahati, and Shri Bidyut Kumar Das, Registrar, Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh - via a Government Notification dated 11.03.2026. The transfer was purportedly issued in compliance with earlier orders of the High Court, but instead replicated a prior transfer order that had already been set aside. The Petitioner challenged this as a violation of judicial independence and constitutional mandate.
Key Facts
- Smt. Polly Koch was serving as Registrar, Labour Court, Guwahati.
- Shri Bidyut Kumar Das was serving as Registrar, Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh.
- On 20.06.2025, the Labour Department issued a transfer order swapping their postings, citing personal hardship of Shri Das (ailing mother in Nagaon).
- The transfer order dated 20.06.2025 was challenged by Smt. Polly Koch in WP(C) No. 3585/2025.
- On 02.12.2025, a Single Judge Bench of the Gauhati High Court set aside the 20.06.2025 transfer order, holding it was not in public interest and lacked administrative justification.
- The Single Judge directed the Labour Department to pass a fresh, constitutionally compliant transfer order.
- Shri Bidyut Kumar Das filed Writ Appeal WA/409/2025 against the 02.12.2025 order.
- On 18.12.2025, the Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s order and directed that a new transfer order be passed accommodating both officers’ positions.
- Despite these clear directions, the Labour Department issued the impugned Notification dated 11.03.2026, which repeated the exact terms of the 20.06.2025 transfer order.
- The Petitioner filed the present writ petition on 15.04.2026 challenging the 11.03.2026 Notification.
Procedural History
- 20.06.2025: Labour Department issues transfer order swapping postings of Petitioner and Respondent No.5.
- 22.07.2025: Petitioner files WP(C) No. 3585/2025 challenging the transfer.
- 02.12.2025: Single Judge Bench of Gauhati HC sets aside the 20.06.2025 transfer order, directs fresh order.
- 18.12.2025: Division Bench affirms Single Judge’s order and directs issuance of a new transfer order.
- 11.03.2026: Labour Department issues Notification repeating the 20.06.2025 transfer, citing compliance with prior orders.
- 15.04.2026: Petitioner files present writ petition WP(C)/1507/2026.
- 25.06.2026: Judgment pronounced by Justice Devashis Barua.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner: Argued that the 11.03.2026 Notification was a direct defiance of the High Court’s binding directions. Contended that the Labour Department had no authority to transfer Registrars of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals, as these posts fall under Article 235 and are under the exclusive control of the High Court. Relied on Dilip Kumar Devasarma v. State of Assam (2026: GAU-AS:7158) to establish that Registrars are part of the judicial service.
For the Respondents: Argued that the transfer was issued in public interest and in compliance with the High Court’s earlier orders. Claimed that the Labour Department retained administrative control over all staff, including Registrars, under the Labour Welfare Department’s jurisdiction.
Relief Sought
The Petitioner sought quashing of the Notification dated 11.03.2026, declaration that she remains posted as Registrar, Labour Court, Guwahati, and that Respondent No.5 remains posted as Registrar, Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh. She also sought a declaration that the Labour Department lacked jurisdiction to issue such transfers.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Labour Department has the legal authority to transfer Registrars of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals, or whether such power is exclusively vested in the Gauhati High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The Petitioner relied on Dilip Kumar Devasarma v. State of Assam (2026: GAU-AS:7158), which held that Registrars of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals are part of the ministerial staff of Subordinate Courts and thus fall under Article 235. She argued that the High Court’s prior orders dated 02.12.2025 and 18.12.2025 were clear: a fresh transfer order must be issued, not a reiteration of the invalidated one. The Labour Department’s action was not merely erroneous but a deliberate circumvention of judicial authority. She further cited the Gujarat High Court’s decision in Industrial Courts Employees Association to reinforce that non-judicial staff of Labour Courts are under High Court control.
For the Respondent
The Respondents contended that the Labour Department retained administrative control over all employees under its purview, including Registrars, as per the Labour Welfare Department’s organizational structure. They argued that the 11.03.2026 Notification was issued in compliance with the High Court’s directions and that the earlier transfer order was merely being reissued in a different form. They did not dispute the High Court’s jurisdiction over judicial officers but claimed Registrars were administrative posts.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a rigorous analysis of constitutional provisions, precedent, and administrative practice. It emphasized that Article 235 vests the High Court with exclusive control over Subordinate Courts, including their non-judicial staff. The Court noted that the State of Assam itself had, in past communications dated 01.02.2006, 23.08.2006, and 30.07.2012, recognized Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals as Subordinate Courts and extended Shetty Commission benefits to their staff.
"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."
The Court rejected the Respondents’ argument that Registrars were merely administrative officers. It held that the position’s function - supporting judicial proceedings, maintaining court records, and assisting Presiding Officers - was integral to the functioning of a Subordinate Court. The Court further observed that the Labour Department’s failure to consider the High Court’s prior orders was not an oversight but a willful disregard.
The Court also noted that the 11.03.2026 Notification was issued in the name of "compliance" yet replicated the very order that had been set aside. This constituted a contemptuous act, undermining judicial authority. The Court concluded that the transfer was not only ultra vires but also arbitrary, violating Article 14.
The Verdict
The Petitioner succeeded. The Court set aside and quashed the Notification dated 11.03.2026. It declared that Smt. Polly Koch shall be deemed to be posted as Registrar, Labour Court, Guwahati, and Shri Bidyut Kumar Das shall be deemed to be posted as Registrar, Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh. The Court further held that the Labour Department had no jurisdiction to issue any transfer order relating to these posts, as such authority rests exclusively with the Gauhati High Court under Article 235. There shall be no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Posting Authority Rests Solely with the High Court
- Practitioners must now challenge any transfer of Registrars, Sheristadars, or other court staff by executive departments as ultra vires Article 235.
- Any administrative order issued by Finance, Labour, or Personnel Departments affecting judicial service staff is void ab initio.
Judicial Orders Cannot Be Circumvented by Repetition
- Reissuing a transfer order that has been set aside, even under the guise of "compliance," constitutes defiance of judicial direction.
- Such acts invite contempt proceedings and may warrant disciplinary action against erring officials.
State’s Past Admissions Bind It
- Where a State has, through official communications, recognized courts as Subordinate Courts under Article 235, it cannot later deny that status for convenience.
- Past recognition of Shetty Commission benefits to court staff strengthens the argument for constitutional control.
Implications for Service Law Practice
- In service disputes involving court staff, the jurisdictional question under Article 235 must be raised at the earliest opportunity.
- Writ petitions under Article 226 are the appropriate remedy, not departmental appeals.
- Legal notices demanding transfer of court staff should be resisted on grounds of lack of authority.
