1991 (5) TMI 251 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Jurisdiction of a single member of the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
2. Controversy regarding the order of transfer of the appellant.

Jurisdiction of Single Member:
The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Act, specifically Section 5(1), (2), and (6), which allow for the Chairman or an authorized Member to function as a single Member Bench. The Court referred to previous cases and emphasized the importance of cases being heard by a Bench of two Members, highlighting the need for serious consideration and thorough examination, especially in cases involving complex legal questions or constitutional issues.

Legislative Intention:
The Court clarified that the legislative intention behind Sections 5(2) and (6) is to safeguard the interests of claimants by ensuring that cases involving questions of law or constitutional interpretation are not assigned to a single Member. The Court emphasized the obligation on the Chairman and Members to refer such cases to a regular bench of two Members. It was noted that suggesting a distinction between Judicial and Administrative Members under Section 5(6) may not be appropriate, and the vires of sub-section (6) were not under challenge.

Appellant's Transfer:
Regarding the controversy over the appellant's transfer, the Court mentioned a subsequent letter indicating no scope for the appellant at the Central Soil Salinity Research Institute. The Court did not make a final decision on this aspect, leaving it to the Tribunal to address.

This judgment clarified the jurisdiction of a single member of the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, emphasizing the need for cases involving complex legal questions to be heard by a Bench of two Members to ensure thorough examination. The legislative intention behind Sections 5(2) and (6) was highlighted to protect the interests of claimants, with an obligation on the Chairman and Members to refer relevant cases to a bench of two Members. The Court also briefly mentioned the controversy over the appellant's transfer, leaving it for the Tribunal to address further.