R. S. BACHAWAT, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. C. SHAH, S. M. SIKRI
Associated Cement Companies LTD. – Appellant
Versus
P. N. Sharma – Respondent
A tribunal, within the context of the legal document, is an adjudicating authority that is vested with the judicial powers of the State and is constituted by the State to decide disputes between parties. The key attributes of a tribunal include being an authority other than a regular court, but still possessing the capacity to determine rights and obligations in a conclusive manner based on judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
The fundamental criterion for identifying a body as a tribunal under the relevant constitutional provision is that it must be invested with the judicial powers of the State, either by statute or statutory rule, and must act judicially or quasi-judicially in resolving disputes. The presence of certain procedural trappings of a court, such as the authority to determine disputes in a formal manner, the power to examine evidence, and the obligation to act fairly and objectively, are relevant but not solely determinative. The core requirement is that the authority exercises the judicial power conferred upon it by the State for resolving disputes impartially and conclusively (!) (!) (!) .
In summary, a tribunal is a body created by the State with the authority to adjudicate disputes, exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, and is distinguished from purely administrative or executive bodies by its exercise of the State’s inherent judicial power (!) (!) (!) .
Judgment
GAJANDRADADKAR, C.J.I. (With Hidayatullah, Shah and Sikri, JJ.) : The principal point of law which arises in this appeal by special leave is whether respondent No. 2, the State of Punjab, exercising its appellate jurisdiction under Rule 6 (6) of the Punjab Welfare Officers Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1952 (hereinafter called the Rules ) is a Tribunal within the meaning of Art. 136 (1) of the Constitution. The appellant, the Associated Cement Companies Ltd., Bhupendra Cement Works, Surajpur, challenges the validity of the appellate order passed by respondent No. 2 on July 4, 1962 under the provision of the said Rule, directing the appellant to reinstate its Welfare Officer, P. N. Sharma - respondent No. 1. At the hearing of this appeal, a preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Goyal on behalf of respondent No. 1 that special leave should not have been granted to the appellant, because the appeal is incompetent inasmuch as respondent No. 2 against whose appellate decision the appellant purports to have preferred the present appeal is not a tribunal under Art. 136(1). If the preliminary objection fails, then it would become necessary to consider the app
referred : Bharat Bank Ltd. Delhi v. Employees of the Bharat Bank Ltd. Delhi
Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S. Advani
Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh
Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commr. of Hills Division
Shivji Nathubhai v. Union of India
Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. Meerut v. Lakshmichand
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.