- (1.) We have heard learned counsel on both sides. Special leave granted.
(2.) The contention of the appellants is that the tribunal did not even notify the appellants of the proceedings and granted relief to the respondent against the appellants without even so much as an opportunity of being heard to the appellants. This grievance seems to have support from the records of the proceedings. In the course of its order, the tribunal says at para 2: "The grievance of the petitioner being simple, no useful purpose shall be served by admitting this application and calling for a counter from the opposite parties. Pendency of this litigation for unlimited lime would deprive her further from the salary which is due and admissible to her. "
(3.) We are afraid, tins perception of the tribunal as to the ends of justice and their expeditious attainment prevailing over the delays inherent in what the tribunal assumes to be a dispensable formality of the filing of a counter and hearing of the other side is wholly erroneous and entirely unsupportable Indeed, these words of Lord Wright in General Medical council v. Spackman are worth recalling: "If the principles of natural justice are violated in respect of any decision, it is, indeed, immaterial whether the same decision would have been arrived at in the absence of the departure from the essential principles of justice. The decision must be declared to be no decision. ";