S.K.Dhaon - (1.) THE U. P. Public Services Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the petitioner. THE Tribunal, on 18th October, 1988, rejected the review application made by the petitioner. Keeping in view the provisions of Rule 1 of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) the Tribunal held that the fresh documents sought to be filed by the petitioner in the review proceedings could not be taken into account as the petitioner had failed to show that the documents were not in his knowledge during the relevant period when the petition was pending before it or the same could not be produced inspite of the exercise of due diligence by the petitioner. THE order rejecting the application for review is being impugned in the present petition.
(2.) FOR the petitioner it is urged that the Tribunal misdirected itself in applying the provisions of rule 1 of Order 47 of the Code while disposing of the application for review. Reliance is placed upon sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 5 of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). For disposing of the contention of the learned counsel sub-section (1) (a) and the relevant provisions of sub-section (5) of section 5 of the Act may be extracted :- "(1) (a) The tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act of 1908), or the rules of evidence contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872), but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice, subject to the provisions of this section and of any rules made under section 7, the tribunal shall have power to regulate its own procedure (including the fixing of places and times of its sittings and deciding whether to sit in public or in private......" "(5) The tribunal shall, for the purpose of holding any inquiry under this Act, have, subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908) while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters i (g) review its decision............" Section 7 contains the usual rule making power and the U. P. Public Services (Tribunal) Rules, 1975 have been framed. However, none of the rules have any bearing on the present controversy. It is well settled that no Court or Tribunal can revise or review its orders or reopen the case unless such a power is conferred by the Statute. There may be an express provision giving a right to review or such a right may flow by necessary implication. The right to get an order of an adjudicatory authority reviewed or revised is a substantive one and not a matter of procedure. Thus, finality is attached to an order and it can be reopened only in accordance with an express or implied statutory provision, if any. In certain situations an adjudicatory authority has an inherent jurisdiction to revise or review its order, but such a power is confined to a limited class of Gases, some of such cases are those where an order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice an order is obtained by practising fraud upon the court or the Tribunal.
(3.) SECTION 5 makes it clear that the provisions as contained in the Code shall not bind the Tribunal in proceedings before it. The legislature mandates that it shall be guided by the principles of natural justice. It also authorises the Tribunal to formulate its own rules or procedure. The power given to a Tribunal to form its own rule or procedure is hedged in with the condition that the rules so formed should conform to the principles of natural justice. The concept of natural justice embraces a twin ideal. The first is that the authority deciding the matter should be free from bias. The second is that a person affected by a decision has a right to be heard To put it in a nutshell, the principles of natural justice secure a fair hearing.;