CHATTERJEE, J. - (1.) IN W.P.C.T. No.573 of 2000 an order was passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 4th of September, 2000 in which it was held that the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short Tribunal ) had no jurisdiction to condone delay in filing a review application in view of Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules). Subsequently this question had cropped up before another Division bench of this Court (quorum Altamas Kabir and Alok Kumar Basu, JJ.) in WPCT No. 271 of 2001. By an order dated 25th September. 2001 the Division Bench in WPCT No. 271 of 2001 had expressed its dissent from the views expressed in the order dated 4th September, 2000 in WPCT No.573 of 2000 and had formulated the question as noted here in below and thereafter referred the matter to the Hon 'ble Chief Justice for decision of the said question by constituting a Larger Bench. The question formulated by the Division Bench in WPCT No. 271 of 2001 (quorum Altamas Kabir and Alok Kumar Basu, JJ.) is as follows : - ''Whether having regard to the provision of Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and Sections 21 and 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing a review application? '' To decide the aforesaid question as formulated, the Hon 'ble Chief Justice of this Court constituted this Larger Bench. Accordingly, we heard the learned Counsel for the parties and this judgment is now being delivered by us.
(2.) A few relevant facts leading to this reference case may be required to be stated for proper decision of the question referred to us. The writ application is directed against an order dated 1st of December, 1999 passed by the Tribunal directing the Union of India to pay the arrear salaries to one Smt. Shefalika Sanyal who is now respondent No. 2 in the present writ application. Smt. Shefalika Sanyal filed an application before the Tribunal for reliefs as noted in the writ petition. The Union of India however, filed an application for review of the order dated 1st of December, 1999 before the Tribunal. From the record it appears that the review application was filed along with an application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal however dismissed the review application on the ground that in view of Rule 17 of the Rules, the question of entertaining an application for condonation of delay . in filing the review application could not arise at all. Therefore, the question that needs to be decided, as noted here in earlier, is whether an application for condonation of delay in filing an application for review can be entertained by the Tribunal in spite of Rule 17 of the Rules and in other words, Rules 17 takes away the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain an application for condonation of delay in filing a review application.
(3.) BEFORE we deal with this question, as aforesaid, it is necessary to note the relevant provisions in the light of which the present controversy can be resolved. Chapter III of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (in Short 'The Act ') deals with jurisdiction, powers and authority of Tribunals. Chapter IV deals with the procedure for the Tribunals. Section 19 of the Act says that subject to the other provisions of the Act, a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any other matter within the jurisdiction of a Tribunal, may make an application to the Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance. Section 20 of the Act deals with applications not to be admitted unless other remedies are exhausted. That is to say this section provides for admission of applications made by aggrieved person only if other remedies available have been exhausted. Section 21 of the Act deals with limitation in filing such original applications. Since in this case we are to consider the question whether an application for condonation of delay can be filed in a review application under the Act, it is expedient for us to quote Section 21 of the Act which runs as under : - ''Limitation. -(1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application. - (a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in C1. (a) of sub -section (2) of Sec.20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made. (b) In a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in C1.(b) of sub -section (2) of Sec.20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub -section (1), where - (a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates; and (b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court, the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in Cl. (a), or, as the case may be, Cl.(b), of sub -section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub -section (1) or sub -section (2) an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in C1.(a) or C1.fb) of sub -section (1) or. as the case may be. the period of six months specified in sub -section (2). if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he has sufficient cause for not making the application within such period." (Emphasis is mine) From a plain reading of the provisions under sub -section (3) of Section 21 of the Act it is clear to us that Section 21 (3) of the Act confer powers on the Tribunal to condone delay in filing an original application before the Tribunal if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he has sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation as prescribed in the Act. Section 22 of the Act is also important to decide the question in hand. Accordingly, we quote the same ''22. Procedure and powers of Tribunals. - (1) A tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any rules made by the Central Government, the Tribunal shall have power to regulate its own procedure including the fixing of places and times of its inquiry and deciding whether to sit in public or in private. (2) A tribunal shall decide every application made to it as expeditiously as possible and ordinarily every application shall be decided on a perusal of documents and written representation and after hearing such oral arguments as may be advanced, (3) A tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging its functions under this Act. the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 (5 of 1908. while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely : - (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on bath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) subject to the provisions of Secs. 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), requisitioning any public record or document or copy of such record or document from any office; (e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or, documents; (f) reviving its decisions; (g) dismissing a representation for default or deciding it ex parte; (h) setting aside any order of dismissal or any representation for default or any order passed by it ex parte; and (i) any other matter which may be prescribed by the Central Government. '' ;