Judicial discipline requires a Tribunal to refer conflicting coordinate bench views on identical facts to a Larger Bench.

A Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal should not depart from an earlier Coordinate Bench decision on identical facts and evidence merely because it prefers a different view. Judicial discipline requires consistency in adjudication, and where a later Bench disagrees with an earlier view, the proper course is to refer the matter to the President of the Tribunal for constitution of a Larger Bench. The note emphasizes that conflicting decisions in the same dispute undermine certainty and institutional integrity, and states that the Tribunal ought to have made such a reference instead of deciding contrary to the earlier view.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal could take a view contrary to an earlier Coordinate Bench decision on the same facts and evidence without referring the matter to a Larger Bench.

Analysis: Where identical facts and evidence had already been considered by one Bench of the Tribunal, a later Bench was not free to reach the opposite conclusion merely because it preferred a different view. Consistency in adjudication required observance of judicial discipline, and if disagreement persisted the proper course was to place the matter before the President of the Tribunal for reference to a Larger Bench. Conflicting determinations in the same dispute created uncertainty and were inconsistent with institutional integrity.

Conclusion: The Tribunal ought to have referred the matter to a Larger Bench instead of deciding contrary to the earlier Tribunal view.

---