Mandatory participation of tribunal members: an award by the President alone was held void and jurisdictionally incompetent.

Under the Punjab Improvement Trust Act, 1922, a Tribunal constituted as a President and two assessors had to act as a composite adjudicatory body when determining compensation and making an award. The President could regulate procedure and decide questions of law, title, and procedure, but could not validly make the award alone because the assessors were mandatory participants, not ornamental members. An award signed only by the President was therefore void and not the Tribunal's award. The earlier contrary view was overruled, and the Court held that stare decisis, acquiescence, and prospective operation could not preserve an interpretation or award that was plainly inconsistent with the statute and went to jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under the Punjab Improvement Trust Act, 1922, the Tribunal could validly make an award through the President acting alone without the participation of the two assessors, and whether the earlier view sustaining such procedure could be preserved on the doctrines of stare decisis, acquiescence, or prospective operation.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treated the Tribunal as a three-member body consisting of a President and two assessors. The President had authority to preside, regulate procedure, summon witnesses, and decide questions of law, title, and procedure, but the determination of compensation and related matters was entrusted to the Tribunal as a composite adjudicatory body. The provisions making the award of the Tribunal equivalent to the award and decree of a civil court, together with the majority-rule mechanism in case of disagreement, showed that the assessors were not ornamental but essential participants in the adjudication. The requirement of collective participation was therefore mandatory, not directory. An award made by the President alone was not the award of the Tribunal and was void. The Court also held that the doctrine of stare decisis could not be used to perpetuate an interpretation plainly contrary to the statute, especially where the earlier view went to jurisdiction. Acquiescence could not confer jurisdiction, and prospective operation was not warranted to preserve an award founded on an incompetent adjudicatory process.

Conclusion: The award made by the President alone was invalid, the earlier contrary view was overruled, and the appeals were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute constituting a quasi-judicial tribunal requires adjudication by a multi-member body and treats the award as that of the tribunal itself, the participation of all statutorily required members is mandatory and an award made by a single member without such participation is void.

---