1928 (11) TMI 4 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of compensation principles for Civil Servants transferred to the Irish Free State.
2. Interpretation and application of Article X of the Articles of Agreement.
3. Validity and binding nature of previous judicial decisions, specifically Wigg v. Attorney-General of Irish Free State.
4. Competency of the Judicial Committee to re-hear cases based on alleged factual errors.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of Compensation Principles for Civil Servants Transferred to the Irish Free State:
The judgment addresses the principles applicable to the determination of compensation for Civil Servants transferred to the Irish Free State post-20th March 1922, who were discharged or retired due to the change in government. The compensation amount was determined by the Irish Free State Government based on principles from British Treasury minutes, particularly the minute of 20th March 1922. The core issue is whether this compensation aligns with the meaning and intent of Article X of the Articles of Agreement.

2. Interpretation and Application of Article X of the Articles of Agreement:
Article X stipulates that the Irish Free State Government agrees to pay fair compensation on terms not less favorable than those provided by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, to judges, officials, police force members, and other public servants affected by the governmental change. The judgment explores whether the compensation determined using the British Treasury minutes, especially the conditions regarding the bonus adjustments and lump sum payments, complies with Article X.

3. Validity and Binding Nature of Previous Judicial Decisions, Specifically Wigg v. Attorney-General of Irish Free State:
The case of Wigg v. Attorney-General of Irish Free State is pivotal, where the Judicial Committee previously ruled in favor of two Civil Servants, interpreting the compensation principles under Article X. The current judgment examines whether the Board is bound by this previous decision. The Board concludes that while it respects prior decisions, it is not inflexibly bound to follow them if they were based on material errors of fact or misapprehensions.

4. Competency of the Judicial Committee to Re-hear Cases Based on Alleged Factual Errors:
The judgment delves into the competency of the Judicial Committee to re-hear cases, especially when a material error of fact is alleged. The Board references several precedents, including Rajunder Narain Rae v. Bijai Govind Sing and Hebbert v. Purchas, to establish that while re-hearings are rare and granted under exceptional circumstances, they are not inherently incompetent. The Board emphasizes that the current reference is not a re-hearing but a new consideration under Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act of 1833 due to an alleged factual error in the previous decision.

Conclusion:
The judgment concludes that the Board is not strictly bound by the previous decision in Wigg's case if it was based on a material factual error. The Board acknowledges its competency to re-examine the principles and facts to ensure fair compensation under Article X. The decision underscores the importance of judicial flexibility and adherence to good sense in rectifying potential errors in previous rulings.