TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the State Government, while deciding an appeal under Rule 6(6) of the Punjab Welfare Officers Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1952, is a tribunal within the meaning of Article 136(1) of the Constitution. (ii) Whether the employer's termination of the Welfare Officer's services was a punishment attracting Rule 6(6) and therefore giving rise to a competent appeal.
Issue (i): Whether the State Government, while deciding an appeal under Rule 6(6) of the Punjab Welfare Officers Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1952, is a tribunal within the meaning of Article 136(1) of the Constitution.
Analysis: The appellate power conferred on the State Government under Rule 6(6) was a statutory power to decide a dispute between two contending parties concerning civil rights. The decision was made final and binding, and the authority was required to determine whether the management's action amounted to punishment and, if so, what consequential order should follow. Even though the Rule did not prescribe a detailed procedure or confer all court-like trappings, the essential test was whether the authority was invested with the judicial power of the State and was under a duty to act judicially. On that test, the State Government's appellate function under Rule 6(6) answered the description of a tribunal.
Conclusion: Yes. The State Government acting under Rule 6(6) is a tribunal within Article 136(1).
Issue (ii): Whether the employer's termination of the Welfare Officer's services was a punishment attracting Rule 6(6) and therefore giving rise to a competent appeal.
Analysis: The termination was effected in accordance with the employee's contractual terms, which permitted discharge on notice or salary in lieu of notice. The order did not follow a punitive enquiry, did not impose any of the punishments contemplated by Rule 6(3), and was treated on its face as a discharge simpliciter. Rule 6(6) applies only where dismissal or termination is punitive. Since the employer's action was not shown to be punitive in substance, the statutory appellate remedy was not attracted.
Conclusion: No. The termination was not a punishment within Rule 6(3), and the appeal under Rule 6(6) was incompetent.
Final Conclusion: The impugned appellate order was without jurisdiction and was set aside, with the appeal succeeding in favour of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: An adjudicating authority constituted by statute and empowered to conclusively determine civil disputes between contending parties under a final and binding appellate power is a tribunal under Article 136(1), but the statutory appeal lies only where the impugned employer action is punitive within the meaning of the governing rule.
TaxTMI 
