CASE COMMENT PROJECT-II

P-II ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

DRAFT PROJECT FOR END TERM

CASE COMMENT:

The Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi vs Employees

Of The Bharat Bank

SUBMITTED BY VIVEK GAUTAM

2017BALLB38, VIIth Semester

SUBMITTED TO PROF. SUSHMA SHARMA

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY BHOPAL

1|Page BHARAT BANK V EMPLOYEES OF BHARAT BANK

CASE COMMENT PROJECT-II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This case comment on “ The Bharat Bank vs Employees of Bharat Bank ” has been made successful by
the help of my professor of administrative law Ms. Sushma Sharma. She went into minute details
of the subject, which in turn enabled us to benefit from experience of learning in her classes. Her
contribution in teaching us has always enabled us to think apart from the very obvious. I thank
her for her extremely gracious help that she has always provided to the students in every walk of
life.

I would utilize this opportunity to thank all those who have played a part in completion of this
project. Special thanks to my parents for their never ending support and blessings.
-Vivek Gautam

2|Page BHARAT BANK V EMPLOYEES OF BHARAT BANK

CASE COMMENT PROJECT-II

In the Supreme Court of India

Name of the Judgment-

The Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi vs Employees Of The Bharat Bank

Citations: 1950 AIR 188, 1950 SCR 459

Background of the case –

 This is an appeal by special leave granted by the Supreme Court filed on 1-3-1950,
against the Award dated 19-1-1950, made by the All India Industrial Tribunal (Bank
Disputes) Bombay and decided on 26/05/1950. Mr. Parwana represented the case on
behalf of bank employees in the Tribunal and Mr. Ved Vyas represented the case on
behalf of the bank in the Tribunal.
 Award was announced by the Industrial Tribunal against Bharat Bank and was in the
favour of its employees and so the appeal is preferred by the Bank in the Supreme Court
because it is not happy by the award as it was completely in the favour of its employees
who went on a strike for getting their demands fulfilled.

3|Page BHARAT BANK V EMPLOYEES OF BHARAT BANK

CASE COMMENT PROJECT-II

Name of Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Hiralal Kania, C.J.

Fazal Ali Saiyid J.

Patanjali Sastri J.

Mehr Chand Mahajan, J.

B.K. Mukherjea, J.

Counsels-

For appellant- Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand (Veda Vyas and S.K. Kapur, with him)

For respondents- B. Sen

Intervener for the Union of India- Alladi Krishnaswami Aiyar – Intervener (Jindra Lal, with him)

Details of Judgment

Judgment was delivered by full bench comprising of five judges.

Judgment was held by M.C. Mahajan with concurring opinion of Fazal Ali J. and H.J. Kania J.

Dissenting opinion was given by B.K. Mukherjee J. and Patanjali Sastri J.

4|Page BHARAT BANK V EMPLOYEES OF BHARAT BANK

CASE COMMENT PROJECT-II

Material Facts of the case-

 In the present case Bharat Bank Limited, Delhi, is a company registered under the Indian
Companies Act and an appellant and its employees are respondents related to a case of
retrenchment and victimization claimed against the bank by the employees of the bank.
 Certain demands were made by its employees but the bank hasn’t responded positively to
their demands and as a result of they struck work on 9th March, 1949.
 The Bank in its turn served notices on them to resume work and proceeded to discharge a
number of them between the 19th March and 24th March as they failed to do so.
 The Central Government constituted a Tribunal consisting of three persons for the
adjudication of industrial disputes in banking companies under Section 7 of the Industrial
Disputes Act (14 of 1947).
 The employees of the bank called off the work of the bank in December 1948. The
dispute was sent to an Industrial Tribunal constituted by the Government of India. The
dispute was pending in the Tribunal and employees called for another strike and due to
this the bank took an action and several employees were dismissed by the bank but the
Tribunal reinstated their dismal by their award.
 The award of the Tribunal was published in the Gazette notification of the Government of
India in January, 1950 and the award was declared to be binding for a period of one year
but this award was only signed by two members but not by all the three members.The
enquiry was held by the Tribunal in Delhi in which it has awarded that 26 employees who
were the employees of the Bharat Bank were wrongly dismissed and should be reinstated.
Further direction has been given to the Bank to give an allowances to the employees who
were earlier dismissed and this award was directed to remain in force for one year.
 The appellant has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against this award given by the
Industrial Tribunal.
 Respondents and Central Government have raised an objection that Supreme Court don’t
have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the order to the Tribunal under article 136
of the Constitution.

5|Page BHARAT BANK V EMPLOYEES OF BHARAT BANK

CASE COMMENT PROJECT-II

Issues and questions raised before the Courts

1. Whether the word Tribunal under Article 136 has been used in the same sense as court, or
whether it has been used in a wider sense?
2. Whether the word determination in the article includes within its scope the
determinations made by Industrial Tribunals or other similarly constituted bodies or
whether it has reference only to determinations of a court or a tribunal of a purely judicial
character?
3. Whether the exercise of overriding powers of this Court can be justified on any ground
whatsoever in the present case?
4. Whether the Supreme Court can exercise its power under Article 136 to hear the appeal
against the award announced by the Administrative Tribunal?

The present issue and question is mixed question of law and fact whereby the Court has
interpreted Article 136 of the Constitution which gives appellate power to the apex court.

Contentions of the Appellant (Bharat Bank)

 A question has been raised as to the meaning to be given of words determination and
Tribunal in the article. The words ―determination and ―tribunal were introduced in the
article in order to bring within the scope of the appellate jurisdiction of this Court all
orders of tribunals of different varieties and descriptions.

6|Page BHARAT BANK V EMPLOYEES OF BHARAT BANK

CASE COMMENT PROJECT-II

 The words, determination and tribunal were added in Article 136 with utmost care and
caution and the intention behind inculcating these words is that if the judicial power of
the state was exercised by the Tribunal and some award or decision was passed in
exercising those powers then in order to meet the end of Justice, Supreme Court has
power to grant special leave to the appeals.
 When a Tribunal exercises judicial matters then such a matter comes within Article 136,
no matter if the power was judicial or quasi judicial.
 Industrial Tribunal was solely judicial because of its function and it is not of
administrative or executive in nature because it is an adjudicating body formed to solve
dispute.
 Giving narrow meanings to the words or provisions of the constitution is the trend
established in this country which is contrary to the drafters of the Indian Constitution.
 the decision of the Tribunal was binding on the Government and the Government had no
power either to affirm, modify or reject it. All that it was authorized to do was to
announce it and by its declaration give it enforceability; that fact, however, could not
affect the question of appealability of the determination under Article 136.
 Four grounds were claimed for justifying exercise of the power of the court under Article
136 of the constitution. First, the word victimization had been interpreted in such a
manner by the Tribunal that it had usurped jurisdiction to decide disputes which were
never referred to it. the word has acquired a special meaning in regard to industrial
disputes and connotes a person who becomes a victim of the employer‘s wrath by reason
of his trade union activities and that the word cannot relate to a person who has been
merely unjustly dismissed. Second, the Tribunal has erred in ordering reinstatement of
persons who were guilty of an illegal strike. Third, the award of the Tribunal is based on
no evidence. Fourth, the final award was signed by only two members among three
members body constituted for the adjudication.

Contentions of Intervener - Central Government

 If any Tribunal, regardless of whether regulatory, domestic or quasi-judicial, acts in

abundance of its ward, at that point it very well may be constrained by the High Courts
under the powers gave on them by Article 226 by the issue of a writ of certiorari. It was

7|Page BHARAT BANK V EMPLOYEES OF BHARAT BANK

CASE COMMENT PROJECT-II

said that if the Industrial Tribunal for this situation could be demonstrated to have
intruded statutory jurisdiction, at that point the cure lies somewhere else and not by a
request of special leave under Article 136.

 The articulation tribunal implies seat of a Judge, or a courtroom. Its important trait is that
it can give a final judgment between two parties at dispute which conveys lawful
approval by its own power.
 It is clearly mentioned in Article 136 that that the kinds of order against which it can
allow Special Leave should be of Judicial nature and unless it is not given by judicial
body, it cannot be appealable.
 The award of the Tribunal is in itself not binding unless it is sanctioned by the
Government through its notification. When it gets sanctioned from the Government then
only it can be binding and because of this nature the award of the Tribunal cannot be
appealed.
 Government can also reject the award and so Tribunal has no power to impose liability or
affecting rights of the parties.
 Industrial Tribunal of India is similar to the Arbitration Tribunals in Australia.
 The word Tribunal when placed in Article 136 was meant to include bodies like Board of
Revenue only.
 The Industrial Tribunal is an administrative body which exercise quasi-judicial functions.

Relevant Provisions Involves

Constitution of India -

Article 136- This article states that the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave
to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter
passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947

8|Page BHARAT BANK V EMPLOYEES OF BHARAT BANK

 CASE COMMENT PROJECT-II

Section 7- Industrial Dispute Tribunal was constituted under Section 7 of the Industrial Dispute
Act of 1947.

Principle involved

Principle of Natural Justice- Principle of Natural Justice is laid down by the Courts to guarantee
the protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary and unfair procedure adopted by
a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority.

Precedents cited in the judgment

R. v. London County Council [(1931) 2 KB 215],- In this case Saville, L.J. gave the meaning of
the word court and judicial authority.

“It is not necessary that it should be a court in the sense that this Court is a Court, it is enough if it
is exercising, after hearing evidence, judicial functions in the sense that it has to decide on

9|Page BHARAT BANK V EMPLOYEES OF BHARAT BANK

CASE COMMENT PROJECT-II

evidence between a proposal and an opposition; and it is not necessary to be strictly a court if it
is a Tribunal which has to decide rightly after hearing evidence and opposition.”

Shell Co. of Australia v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation [(1931) AC 275] – In this case it

was held that many Tribunals have trappings of a court but they are not actual courts which
exercise judicial power.

Huddart, Parker & Co. v. Moorehead [8 CLR 330, 357] – In this case Griffith C.J. held that the
“words  ̳judicial power‘ as used in Section 71 of the Constitution mean the power which every
sovereign authority must of necessity have to decide controversies between its subjects, or
between itself and its subjects, whether the rights relate to life, liberty or property. The exercise
of this power does not begin until some tribunal which has power to give a binding and
authoritative decision (whether subject to appeal or not) is called upon to take action.”

Cooper  v. Wilson [(1937) 2 KB 309, 340]- The words judicial and quasi-judicial are defined in
“this case. A true judicial decision presupposes an existing dispute between two or more parties,
and then involves four requisites: (1) The presentation (not necessarily orally) of their case by
the parties to the dispute; (2) if the dispute between them is a question of fact, the ascertainment
of the fact by means of evidence adduced by the parties to the dispute and often with the
assistance of argument by or on behalf of the parties on the evidence; (3) if the dispute between
them is a question of law, the submission of legal argument by the parties, and (4) a decision”
“which disposes of the whole matter by a finding upon the facts in dispute and application of the
law of the land to the facts so found, including where required a ruling upon any disputed
question of law. A quasi-judicial decision equally presupposes an existing dispute between two
or more parties and involves (1) and (2), but does not necessarily involve (3) and never involves
(4). The place of (4) is in fact taken by administrative action, the character of which is
determined by the Minister‘s free choice.”

Western India Automobile Association v. Industrial Tribunal, Bombay [(1949) FCR 321]- In

“this case it was observed that such a Tribunal can do what no court can, namely, add to or alter
the terms or conditions of the contract of service. The Tribunal having been entrusted with the
duty of adjudicating a dispute of a peculiar character, it is for this reason that it is armed with

10 | P a g e BHARAT BANK V EMPLOYEES OF BHARAT BANK

 CASE COMMENT PROJECT-II

extraordinary powers. These powers, however, are derived from the statute. These are the Rules
of the game and it has to decide according to these Rules. The powers conferred have the
sanction of law behind it and are not exercisable by reason of any discretion vested in the”
“members of the Tribunal. The adjudication of the dispute has to be in accordance with evidence
legally adduced and the parties have a right to be heard and being represented by a legal
practitioner. Right to examine and cross-examine witnesses has been given to the parties and
finally they can address the Tribunal when evidence is closed. The whole procedure adopted by
the Act and the Rules is modelled on the Code of Civil Procedure. In my opinion, therefore, the
Industrial Tribunal has all the necessary attributes of a court of justice. It has no other function”
except that of adjudicating on a dispute.

Shell Co. of Australia v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation-

“The question raised in that case was whether the Board of Review, which was set up in 1925
under the Commonwealth Income Tax legislation, was a Court exercising judicial powers of the
Commonwealth? The High Court of Australia decided by a majority that it was an administrative
and not a judicial tribunal and this majority judgment was affirmed in appeal by the Privy
Council.”

Cooper v. Wilson- In this case Scott L.J. pointed out four requisites of the body exercising
judicial powers-

(1) The presentation of their case by the parties to the dispute;

(2) if the dispute between them is a question of fact, the ascertainment of the fact by
means of evidence adduced by the parties to the dispute and often with the assistance of
argument by or on behalf of the parties on the evidence;

(3) if the dispute between them is a question of law, the submission of legal argument by
the parties; and

11 | P a g e BHARAT BANK V EMPLOYEES OF BHARAT BANK

CASE COMMENT PROJECT-II

(4) a decision which disposes of the whole matter by a finding upon the facts in dispute
and an application of the law of the land to the facts so found, including where required a
ruling upon any disputed question of law.

The quasi-judicial body involves (1) and (2) but not necessarily involves (3) and (4) is
replaced by administrative action.

Majority opinion delivered by M.C. MAHAJAN J.( Concurring opinion of Fazl Ali and
H.J. Kania)

 New highlight presented in Article 136 is the power given to allow special leave against
orders and determinations and so forth of any Tribunal in the region of India.
 Narrow interpretation should not be made of Article 136. Article 136 ave power to grant
special appeal to appeals against the award of Tribunals as well with the courts if it is
against the principle of natural justice or has ousted the jurisdiction.
 Tribunals, though not a full-fledged courts are the parts of the term court because of the
intentions of the drafters of the Constitution and so Supreme Court has power under
Article 136 to hear appeal..
 A tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, exercises quasi-judicial
powers. That phrase implies that a certain content of the judicial power of the State is
vested in it and it is called upon to exercise it. 
 The present dispute concerns the rights of employers and employees. The award given by
the Tribunal not only affects employees but also the employers. Its decision affects the
terms of a contract of service or the conditions of employment. The decision not only
affects the employer but also the employee. Adjudication of such a dispute in the tribunal
affects valuable rights.
 Various provisions are there in procedural and substantive laws which give powers of the
court to the Tribunals. Rule 21 of Code of Civil Procedure provides that in addition to the
powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Act, a tribunal shall have the
same powers as are vested in a civil court in order to trying a suit. Any request or

12 | P a g e BHARAT BANK V EMPLOYEES OF BHARAT BANK

CASE COMMENT PROJECT-II

examination by a Tribunal will be regarded to be a legal continuing inside the importance

of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code. So it is hard to imagine considering
these arrangements that the Industrial Tribunal plays out any capacities other than that of
a legal sort.
 Tribunal is esteemed to be a common court for specific purposes as set down in Rule 21
of the Rules above refered to and in Section 11(3) of the Act. As a common court on the
off chance that it practices any of the forces examined by this part its choices would get
subject to speak to a District Judge and even more so this present Court's capacity under
Article 136 would immediately be pulled in regardless in regard of these issues.
 There is a remedy if Tribunal has either exceeded its jurisdiction or has approached to the
conclusion which is likely to cause injustice then such decision can be quashed through
the issuance of writ or certiorari and prohibition.
 Tribunals under Article 136 have attributes of the court of justice.
 Tribunal when have the following requisites acts as a Court (a) enforcing the attendance
of any person and examining him on oath; (b) compelling the production of documents
and material objects; (c) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses.
 In the present case the employees of the bank called for another strike when the dispute
was in the tribunal and section 23(b) of the Act states that if another strike called upon
during the pendency of the dispute in the Tribunal then such strike shall be regarded as an
illegal strike. But it is nowhere mentioned in the act that employees who were part of
such an illegal strike shall not be reinstated and so this ground shall not justify the grant
of special leave.
 The third ground was that of evidence, that the Tribunal gave award without putting any
evidence on record. Employees of the bank failed to provide any evidence pertaining to
victimization not they have put this through an affidavit so the award given by the
Tribunal without proper evidence was against the principles of Natural Justice and the
procedure was foreign to India’s democratic constitution and amounted to benevolent
despotism because the Act and the rules contemplated proper hearing, inspection and
production of document and production of evidence, and it seems that the Tribunal failed
in upholding these values of the Act. Hence, the award given by the Tribunal should be
quashed.

13 | P a g e BHARAT BANK V EMPLOYEES OF BHARAT BANK

CASE COMMENT PROJECT-II

 As the award was not signed by all the members of the Tribunal which is mandated by
the Act, hence the award of the Tribunal signed by only two members should be quashed
because this idea of two members signing the award and three members hearing the case
is repugnant to the notion of fairness. So the exceptional powers have to be exercised by
the Court because if the legally constituted body constituted under the statute does not act
as per the statute then it will vitiate the principles of natural justice.
 So the award is quashed by the Supreme Court.

Minority Opinion delivered by Mukherjea J. and Sastri J.

 The administrative Tribunals are not empowered to make judicial decisions. They just
have some trappings of the court but cannot be regarded as the court of justice. Reliance
was made on the judgment of the Privy Council in Shell Co. of Australia v. Federal
Commissioner of Taxation. These trappings cannot be regarded as the court as
administrative bodies can also exercise such powers.
 In the majority of cases, administrative bodies are also armed with the powers of a Court
of Justice in summoning witnesses, administering oaths and punishing disobedience to its
order made for the purpose of effecting its enquiries
 There is no particular test to determine judicial nature of the body as it is not exclusive of
the Court of Justice as now it has been extended to the Committees and boards in order to
conduct enquiries.
 Two tests were given in order to decide the nature of Judicial and quasi-judicial body.
One of the fundamental tests to decide judicial nature of the nature is its “determination”.
The nature of the determination of the judicial body is such that its decision creates rights
and obligation and is binding and the only thing which is left after the decree has been
passed by the court is that of its enforcement but the award passed by the tribunal has to
be confirmed by the head of the department under whom the enquiry was set up and so it
is not purely of judicial nature. Second test is that the judicial bodies relies upon the
established law in deciding disputes but quasi judicial bodies are not bound by law. The
judge exercising judicial powers has to apply law to the facts of the case but the members

14 | P a g e BHARAT BANK V EMPLOYEES OF BHARAT BANK

CASE COMMENT PROJECT-II

deciding administrative dispute uses rules of administrative policies and anything that is
proper as per the circumstances.
 As to the question of the word “Determination” and “Tribunal”, these words do not
include within itself judicial determination and quasi-judicial bodies. There is no hard
and fast rule to demonstrate whether decision of quasi-judicial bodies can be put to
appeal because decisions of tribunals amounts to be the decision of court of justice but it
cannot be construed that decision of the Tribunal should be appealable because they are
not courts in the proper sense. Supreme Court can only consider this power if it can
effectively and fully exercise it based on the nature of the Tribunal and if this is not
possible then it must be kept outside the preview of Article 136.
 The inability in the matter of practicing powers as a re-appraising Court would likewise
emerge from the way that the guidelines and standards by which the court conventionally
judge the adequacy of legal choices are not fit for being applied to the conclusions of
certain managerial councils since they are banished by the law under which the court
capacities.
 If the question is of jurisdiction that the particular tribunal has transgressed its
jurisdiction then the writ of certiorari and prohibition can be issued against that award but
the award given by the Tribunal is not appealable in the Supreme Court.

 The object of the Industrial Tribunal Act states that "it is to make provisions for
investigation and settlement of industrial disputes and for certain other purposes” and
here the word settlement means establishing compromise the interested parties. Three
classes of authorities are established by the Act in order to solve dispute. First, board of
conciliation or conciliation officers whose duty is to amicable solve disputes between the
parties. Second, Court of Enquiry whose duty is to investigate and submit its report to the
Government. Lastly, Industrial Tribunals.
 There is no distinction made in the Act regarding abovementioned three authorities.
Subsection (3) of section11 of the Act states that the enquiries and investigation made by
these three authorities shall be regarded as judicial proceedings within the meaning of S.
193 and 228 of Indian Penal Code. This means proceedings before these bodies can be
regarded as Judicial proceedings only for specified purposes and not generally.

15 | P a g e BHARAT BANK V EMPLOYEES OF BHARAT BANK

CASE COMMENT PROJECT-II

 Tribunals have trappings of a Court which does not make it an actual court of justice and
its position is same as that of the Board of Conciliation or Court of Enquiry.
 The process employed by the Tribunal to come to a decision is not judicial process at all.
Tribunals are not confined to the rigid rule of law but they create rights and obligations
on the parties which are reasonable and proper. The objective of the Tribunal is to fill the
gap or resolve the dispute between the employees and employers so that it can make
equitable arrangements for averting strikes and lockouts that can hamper Industrial
development of the country.
 On these views an Industrial Tribunal formed under the Industrial Disputes Act is not a
judicial tribunal and its determination is not a judicial determination in the proper sense.

This is the very first case in which the award of the Tribunal was challenged in the Supreme
Court under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution is the appellate jurisdiction of the Court. No
judgment has been reversed or upheld by this judgment. But I would appreciate the minority
opinion of the judgment because bringing Tribunals under the ambit of the Supreme Court
diluted the purpose of the Supreme Court due to which it was constituted. It is right to say and as
mentioned in the judgment that what if Tribunals transgressed its jurisdiction or decides on the
question out of its purview then one have remedy of writ which can be issued by the highest
court but this should not be extended to give right of appeal to its judgment. What I can suggest
is that there should be modifications made in the procedure of Tribunals which they undertake so
as to make it more inclusive.

16 | P a g e BHARAT BANK V EMPLOYEES OF BHARAT BANK

CASE COMMENT PROJECT-II

Concrete Judgement(Judgment in Personam)

 Held that the Supreme Court have powers to hear appeal under Article 136 of the
constitution from the Tribunals as the adjudicating powers conferred to them are similar
to that of exercising judicial powers of Courts under Article 136. Industrial Tribunal
functioning under Industrial Dispute Act of 1947 is the body discharging Judicial
functions, though it is not a court.
 Held that there is no ground of appeal and hence it has been dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi(Judgemnt in Rem)

17 | P a g e BHARAT BANK V EMPLOYEES OF BHARAT BANK

CASE COMMENT PROJECT-II

 Based on the intentions of the Constitution makers while drafting the constitution have
this in their mind that all types of judicial functions are part of the term ‘court’. Hence, it
comes under Article 136 of the constitution and is appealable.
 Tribunals have trappings of the court and hence they exercise judicial functions.
 Tribunals constituted under the act exercises quasi-judicial powers which implies that
they are vested with certain judicial power of the state.
 Tribunals under Article 136 have attributes of the court of justice.
 Tribunal when have the following requisites acts as a Court (a) enforcing the attendance
of any person and examining him on oath; (b) compelling the production of documents
and material objects; (c) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses. And all
the Tribunals have these features.

Conclusion&substantive analysis

I give me preference to the minority opinion in the present case because the very essence of the
Tribunals was to ease the roster on the Courts and to make the path of justice achievable but
adding the appeal to its award does nothing but will dilute the purpose of Tribunals. It is right to
say and as mentioned in the judgment that what if Tribunals transgressed its jurisdiction or
decides on the question out of its purview then one have remedy of writ which can be issued by
the highest court but this should not be extended to give right of appeal to its judgment. What I
can suggest is that there should be modifications made in the procedure of Tribunals which they
undertake so as to make it more inclusive.
18 | P a g e BHARAT BANK V EMPLOYEES OF BHARAT BANK
CASE COMMENT PROJECT-II

Other reason to go with the minority opinion is that, if the appeal is filed in the Court then it can
only quash the award and ask the Tribunal to reinitiate the investigation and give another award.
This will further delay the process and as said Justice delayed is justice denied. So, the award of
the Tribunal should not be put on appeal and should be kept outside the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court. Also, the procedure adopted by the Tribunals in deciding the case does not
adhere to the Rule of law but on the rules of administrative law and administrative policies
according to the facts and circumstances.

19 | P a g e BHARAT BANK V EMPLOYEES OF BHARAT BANK