Supreme Court precedent prevails over contrary High Court views, and tribunals must decide references accordingly.

A quasi-judicial tribunal must apply subsequent Supreme Court judgments when they affect an earlier Division Bench view of a High Court, and it cannot decline jurisdiction on the mistaken assumption that only the High Court can determine whether its earlier opinion still governs. The Supreme Court's law prevails over any contrary High Court view, so the tribunal was required to examine the reference on that basis. Its refusal to consider the later Supreme Court decisions was erroneous, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in declining to consider the effect of subsequent Supreme Court judgments on an earlier Division Bench judgment of the High Court and in refusing to decide the reference on merits.

Analysis: The Tribunal had answered the reference but then abdicated its function on the mistaken premise that it lacked jurisdiction to examine whether the earlier High Court view continued to hold the field after subsequent Supreme Court pronouncements. A quasi-judicial authority cannot ignore the law declared by the Supreme Court on the ground that only the High Court can decide whether its earlier opinion survives. The binding force of the Supreme Court's decisions prevails over any contrary view taken by a Division Bench of a High Court, and the Tribunal was required to address the reference in that light.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's refusal to consider the Supreme Court judgments was erroneous, and the matter had to be sent back for fresh adjudication on merits.

---