2015 (2) TMI 1273 - HC - Indian Laws

Change of composition of Full Bench - revision of seniority list of Engine Fitters - whether in a Full Bench of the Administrative Tribunal the number of Administrative Members could be more than the number of Judicial Members? Held that - The Administrative Tribunal itself contains a provision which gives a very vague indication. While empowering the Chairperson of the Tribunal under Section 5(4)(d) to constitute a Bench comprised of more than two members the Act circumscribes such a power through a Proviso to the effect that every Bench so constituted should include at least one Judicial Member and one Administrative Member. In other words the bottom line prescribed by the Proviso to Section 5(4)(d) is that there should be one Judicial Member and one Administrative Member. This simply would mean that in a Bench of Three Members all of them cannot be Judicial Members and all of them cannot also be Administrative Members. The Proviso to Section 5(4)(d) of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 cannot be understood to mean that the Parliament contemplated a single Judicial Member to be a decorative piece in a Bench of more than two - in a Bench of more than two Members constituted by the Chairperson of the Administrative Tribunal the number of Administrative Members cannot exceed the number of Judicial Members. Matter remitted back to the Tribunal for reconstitution of the Full Bench - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the composition of a Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
2. Interpretation of Section 5(4)(d) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
3. The balance between Judicial Members and Administrative Members in the Tribunal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the composition of a Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which refused to change the composition of a Full Bench consisting of one Judicial Member and two Administrative Members. The petitioner argued that the composition should include more Judicial Members than Administrative Members.

2. Interpretation of Section 5(4)(d) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985:
The court undertook an extensive historical analysis of the establishment and evolution of Administrative Tribunals in India, referencing key cases such as S.P. Sampath Kumar vs. Union of India, M.B. Majumdar vs. Union of India, and L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India. The court examined the amendments made to Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, particularly focusing on the proviso to Section 5(4)(d), which mandates that a Bench comprising more than two Members should include at least one Judicial Member and one Administrative Member. The court noted that this proviso should not be interpreted to mean that the number of Administrative Members could exceed the number of Judicial Members.

3. The balance between Judicial Members and Administrative Members in the Tribunal:
The court emphasized that the balance between Judicial and Administrative Members is crucial to ensure the effective administration of justice. It referred to various judgments, including those related to the National Company Law Tribunal and National Tax Tribunal, to highlight the importance of having a judicious mix of members with legal expertise and those with administrative experience. The court concluded that in a Bench of more than two Members, the number of Administrative Members should not exceed the number of Judicial Members to maintain this balance.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal to reconstitute the Full Bench in accordance with the principles laid down in the judgment. The court requested that the reconstitution be done within a month to ensure the matter could be heard and disposed of at the earliest.