As per case facts, the High Court, exercising its writ jurisdiction, questioned the appointment of Shri N.A. Acharya, seeking to determine if a writ of quo warranto should be issued. ... This was based on the premise that an Industrial Court President must first be appointed as a Member according to the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is limited and usually concerns statutory rules. The question arose whether Shri N.A. Acharya fulfilled the qualifications laid down under sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, and if the President of the Court of Industrial Arbitration must first be a Member before being appointed President. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's interpretation was flawed. Sub-section (2) of Section 10, which addresses the composition of the court, does not restrict the State's power to appoint a President directly. The eligibility criteria for both a Member and the President under sub-section (4) of Section 10 are the same. The Court emphasized purposive construction of statutes to avoid absurdity, concluding that the appointment of Shri N.A. Acharya was neither illegal nor invalid.