https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169429 A permission-granting Conciliation Officer under clause 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Order, 1954 was not a tribunal for Article 136 because, although required to act judicially, he lacked the judicial power of the State and had no court-like procedure, power to take evidence on oath, compel witnesses, adjudicate disputes, or issue a binding award. The resulting direction was therefore not appealable to the Supreme Court. It was also not appealable to the Labour Appellate Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, because that Act covers adjudicatory awards or decisions of industrial tribunals or analogous authorities, not a conciliation officer's permission order. en-us Tue, 25 Sep 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Jun 2015 16:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169429 A permission-granting Conciliation Officer under clause 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Order, 1954 was not a tribunal for Article 136 because, although required to act judicially, he lacked the judicial power of the State and had no court-like procedure, power to take evidence on oath, compel witnesses, adjudicate disputes, or issue a binding award. The resulting direction was therefore not appealable to the Supreme Court. It was also not appealable to the Labour Appellate Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, because that Act covers adjudicatory awards or decisions of industrial tribunals or analogous authorities, not a conciliation officer's permission order. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 25 Sep 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169429