Vs. Union of India  INSC 28 (13 January 1994)
Singh (J) Kuldip Singh (J) Yogeshwar Dayal (J)
1994 AIR 1531 1994 SCR (1) 1 1994 SCC (2) 406 JT 1994 (1) 1 1994 SCALE (1)14
have heard Smt Shyamla Pappu, learned senior counsel for the respondent who has
preferred this review petition.
consideration of the matter, we find that the grounds raised in support of the
review, do not justify our interference with the earlier order dated February 9, 1993.
However, there is one other aspect which might bear consideration. In the
course of the order, it was observed: (SCC p. 173, para 17)
keeping in view the judgment of this Court in Amulya Chandra Kalita case' we
should have remanded the case to the Tribunal for a fresh disposal because of
the fact that the order of the Tribunal was rendered by only one member or to
have awaited the decision of some cases pending in this Court in which the
validity of the order passed by single member of the Tribunal is under
This statement might be susceptible of an interpretation that it denudes the
efficacy of the pronouncement of this Court in Mahabal Ram (Dr) v. Indian
Council of Agricultural Research2 to which reference was not made at the
hearing of the main appeal. It is, therefore, appropriate that the
observations, excerpted above, are deleted from the order. They are,
accordingly, deleted, lest there be scope for any such misunderstanding.