1. These appeals are directed against an order made by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in three original applications. In those cases the question raised is whether the applicants belong to the cadre of Staff Officers or Under-Secretaries and in order to arrive at a conclusion, one way or the other, necessarily the relevant rules relating to the constitution of the cadre and their designation made in the respective orders from time to time had to be looked into. However, the matter was decided by a Single Member of the Tribunal who was an Administrative Member. A Constitution Bench of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, quoted with approval the decision of this Court in Mahabal Ram (Dr) v. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, as follows:
"... There is no doubt that what has been said in Sampath Kumar case would require safeguarding the interest of litigants in the matter of disposal of their disputes in a judicious way. Where complex questions of law would be involved the dispute would require serious consideration and thorough examination. There would, however, be many cases before the Tribunal where very often no constitutional issues or even legal points would be involved.... We are prepared to safeguard the interests of claimants who go before the Tribunal by holding that while allocating work to the Single Member--whether judicial or administrative--in terms of Sub-section (6), the Chairman should keep in view the nature of the litigation and where questions of law and for interpretation of constitutional provisions are involved they should not be assigned to a Single Member, In fact, the proviso itself indicates Parliament's concern to safeguard the interest of claimants by casting an obligation on the Ch man and Members who hear the cases to refer to a regular Bench of two Members such cases which in their opinion require to be heard by a Bench of two Members. We would like to add that it would be open to either party appearing before a Single Member to suggest to the Member hearing the matter that it should go to a Bench of two Members. The Member should ordinarily allow the matter to go to a Bench of two Members when so requested. This would sufficiently protect the interests of the claimants and even of the administrative system whose litigations may be before the Single Member for disposal.... The vires of Sub-section (6) has not been under challenge and, therefore, both the provisions in Section 5 have to be construed keeping the legislative intention in view. We are of the view that what we have indicated above brings out the true legislative intention and the prescription in Sub-section (2) and the exemption in Sub-section (6) are rationalised."
2. We may also notice that in the matter of allotment of cases as no rules had been framed, the Chairman of the Tribunal had also issued an order on 27-8-1993 which is as under:
"In supersession of Order No. R/D/1-93, Indore, dated 6-8-1993 on the subject, and in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the M.P. Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, I, P.C Pathak, Chairman, M.P. Administrative Tribunal, hereby authorise the Judicial Member of the M.P. Administrative Tribunal to function as a Bench consisting of Single Member and to exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal in respect of hearing including the final hearing of all types of cases within the jurisdiction of Tribunal."
3. Even assuming that all the powers of the Tribunal could be exercised by any Single Member, it can only be by a Judicial Member of the Tribunal and not any other member under the aforesaid order.
4. Shri B.S. Banthia, learned counsel appearing for the respondents drew our attention to the decision of this Court in Indermani Kirtipal v. Union of India, and submitted that a decision by a Single Member of the Tribunal is not without jurisdiction particularly when a party had acquiesced in the proceedings before the Single Member of the Tribunal. He, therefore, submitted that there is no need for this Court to interfere with such an order made by a Single Member of the Tribunal.
5. We are not resting our decision on lack of jurisdiction of a Single Member of the Tribunal as we are more concerned with the administration of justice. The Tribunal had been constituted in substitution of the High Court as was noticed by this Court in Chandra Kumar case. To have proper administration of justice while allotting work to a Single Member, whether judicial or administrative, the Chairman should keep in mind the nature of the litigation and where questions of law and its interpretation are involved, they should be assigned to a Division Bench of which one of them is a Judicial Member. Keeping this wholesome principle in view, we think the order made by the Tribunal should be set aside. In the circumstances, we allow these appeals, set aside the order made by the Tribunal and remit the matters to the Tribunal for consideration as aforesaid on merits by a Division Bench of which one of them is a Judicial Member.
6. Considering that the appeals are old ones, it would be appropriate to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from today.