Dr Mahabal
Ram Vs. Indian Council of Agriculture Research [1991] INSC 128 (3 May 1991)
Misra,
Rangnath (Cj) Misra, Rangnath (Cj) Kania, M.H. Kuldip Singh (J)
CITATION:
1994 SCC (2) 401
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
ORDER
1.
Special leave granted.
2.
This matter has two aspects involved in it firstly, the question as to whether
a single member of the Central Administrative Tribunal set up under the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has jurisdiction to dispose of matters
coming before the Tribunal under the Act a question which has been referred by
a two-Judge Bench to a larger Bench and the second, a controversy between the
parties which centres round the order of transfer of the appellant. We do not
propose to finally dispose of the second aspect and would leave it to the
Tribunal to deal with it in the manner which we shall presently indicate.
3.
Turning to the first aspect, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant
provisions of the Act. Section 5 deals with composition of the Tribunal and
benches thereof.
Section
5(1), (2) and (6) provide :
"5.
(1) Each Tribunal shall consist of a Chairman and such number of Vice-Chairman
(and Judicial and Administrative Members) as the appropriate Government may
deem fit and, subject to the other 403 provisions of this Act, the
jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal may be exercised by Benches
thereof.
(2)
Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Bench shall consist of one
Judicial Member and one Administrative Member.
(6)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section,
it shall be competent for the Chairman or any other Member authorised by the
Chairman in this behalf to function as (a Bench) consisting of a single Member
and exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal in respect
of such classes of cases or such matters pertaining to such classes of cases as
the Chairman may by general or special order specify :
Provided
that if at any stage of the hearing of any such case or matter it appears to
the Chairman or such Member that the case or matter is of such a nature that it
ought to be heard by a Bench consisting of (two Members) the case or matter may
be transferred by the Chairman or, as the case may be, referred to him for
transfer to, such Bench as the Chairman may deem fit."
4. A
two-Judge Bench of this Court in Amulya Chandra Kalita v. Union of India' dealt
with the dispute where a claim had been disposed by a Single Administrative
Member.
This
Court in that case referred to sub-section (2) of Section 5 and the
observations made by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of S.P. Sampath
Kumar v. Union of India2 and indicated that the scheme of statute was that
cases should be heard by a Bench of two Members. From what has been said in the
judgment, it appears that sub- section (6) of Section 5 was not brought to the
notice of the Court.
5.
Undoubtedly in Sampath Kumar case2 this Court has clearly indicated that the
jurisdiction of the High Court had been transferred to the Tribunal and,
therefore, the nature of the business transacted by the Tribunal was judicial
out and out. Referring to this aspect, Chief Justice Bhagwati has said: (SCC p.
131, para 5) "It is necessary to bear in mind that service matters which.
are removed from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution and entrusted to the Administrative Tribunal set up under
the impugned Act for adjudication involve questions of interpretation and
applicability of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 311 in quite a large number of cases.
These questions require for their determination not only judicial approach but
also knowledge and expertise in this particular branch of constitutional law.
It is necessary that those who adjudicate upon these questions should have same
modicum of legal training and judicial experience because we find that some of
these 1 (1991) 1 SCC 181:1991 SCC (L&S) 145: 1990(1) JT 558 2 (1987) 1 SCC
124: (1987) 2 ATC 82: AIR 1987 SC 386: (1987) 1 SCR 435 404 questions are so
difficult and complex that they baffle the minds of even trained judges in the
High Courts and the Supreme Court."
6.
Sub-sections (2) and (6) appearing as limbs of the same section have to be
harmoniously construed. There is no doubt that what has been said in Sampath
Kumar case2 would require safeguarding the interest of litigants in the matter
of disposal of their disputes in a judicious way. Where complex questions of
law would be involved the dispute would require serious consideration and
thorough examination.
There
would, however, be many cases before the Tribunal where very often no
constitutional issues or even legal points would be involved. Mr Ramamurthi,
Senior Counsel, suggested to us in course of the hearing that keeping the
principles indicated in the Constitutional Bench judgment in view, the Single
Member contemplated under sub-section (6) should be meant to cover a judicial
member only. That view may perhaps not be appropriate to adopt. On the other
hand, we are prepared to safeguard the interests of claimants who go before the
Tribunal by holding that while allocating work to the Single Member whether
judicial or administrative in terms of sub-section (6), the Chairman should
keep in view the nature of the litigation and where questions of law and for
interpretation of constitutional provisions are involved they should not be
assigned to a Single Member. In fact, the proviso itself indicates Parliament's
concern to safeguard the interest of claimants by casting an obligation on the
Chairman and Members who hear the cases to refer to a regular bench of two
members such cases which in their opinion require to be heard by a bench of two
Members. We would like to add that it would be open to either party appearing
before a Single Member to suggest to the Member hearing the matter that it
should go to a bench of two Members. The Member should ordinarily allow the
matter to go to a bench of two Members when so requested. This would
sufficiently protect the interests of the claimants and even of the administrative
system whose litigations may be before the Single Member for disposal. To make
a distinction between Judicial Member and Administrative Member functioning
under sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Act may not be appropriate and,
therefore, we have not been able to accept the approach suggested by Mr Ramamurthi.
The observation made in the two-Judge Bench case that no provision was cited to
them that a Single Member could hear cases laid before the Tribunal led to the
conclusion that the judicial business of the Administrative Tribunal was
intended to be carried by a bench of two Members. The vires of sub-section (6)
has not been under challenge and, therefore, both the provisions in Section 5
have to be construed keeping the legislative intention in view. We are of the
view that what we have indicated above brings out the true legislative
intention and the prescription in sub- section (2) and the exemption in
sub-section (6) are rationalised.
7. Now
in the instant case we have been told that subsequent to the decision of the
Tribunal, there has been a letter from the Director of the Central Soil
Salinity Research Institute, Karnal, that there is no scope for the appellant
to be fitted into that Institute to which the appellant has been 406 Advocates
who appeared in this case:
Ms Shyamla
Pappu, Senior Advocate (J.D. Jain, Advocate, with her) for the Petitioner;
Back