HARI KRISHAN VASHISHTHA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE U. P. Public Services Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the petitioner. THE Tribunal, on 18th October, 1988, rejected the review application made by the petitioner. Keeping in view the provisions of Rule 1 of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) the Tribunal held that the fresh documents sought to be filed by the petitioner in the review proceedings could not be taken into account as the petitioner had failed to show that the documents were not in his knowledge during the relevant period when the petition was pending before it or the same could not be produced inspite of the exercise of due diligence by the petitioner. THE order rejecting the application for review is being impugned in the present petition.

(2.) FOR the petitioner it is urged that the Tribunal misdirected itself in applying the provisions of rule 1 of Order 47 of the Code while disposing of the application for review. Reliance is placed upon sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 5 of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(3.) SECTION 5 makes it clear that the provisions as contained in the Code shall not bind the Tribunal in proceedings before it. The legislature mandates that it shall be guided by the principles of natural justice. It also authorises the Tribunal to formulate its own rules or procedure. The power given to a Tribunal to form its own rule or procedure is hedged in with the condition that the rules so formed should conform to the principles of natural justice.