AMULYA CHANDRA KALITA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted. Heard counsel on both sides.

(2.) The only question to which we are addressing ourselves is whether the Administrative Member of the central Administrative tribunal could alone decide the case in the face of this court's decision in S. P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India. In that case this court pointed out in paragraph 5 of the judgment as under:

(3.) Part XIV-A containing Articles 323-A and 323-B was introduced in the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976. Article 323-A enables Parliament to make law providing for the adjudication or trial by Administrative tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect of recruitment and conditions of service of persons or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the government of India or of any corporation owned or controlled by the government. It permits the exclusion of the jurisdiction of all courts except the jurisdiction of this court under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Parliament then enacted the Administrative tribunals Act, 1985, providing for the adjudication of such disputes and complaints through the tribunals established under S. 4 of the said Act. S. 5 (1 sets out the constitution of the tribunal and adds that 'the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the tribunal may be exercised by benches thereof. Ss. (2 of that S. next provides that 'a bench shall consist of one Judicial Member and Administrative Member'. No provision to the contrary is shown to us. It is, therefore, statutorily recognised that every bench of the tribunal must consist of a Judicial Member and an Administrative Member. It is, therefore, obvious that the Administrative Member alone could not have heard and decided the matter.