Introduction

The term administrative adjudication has been used synonymously with administrative
justice. In a socialist society, bulk of cases are not decide by the ordinary Courts. When a
dispute arises between an administrative agency and a private person, it is settled by the
administration, this is called administrative adjudication.
Jural postulates play a vital role in administrative adjudication. This is so because
administrative adjudication is based on the assumption is based on the assumption that when
liberty is subtracted, justice has to be added. It is necessary to make the people conscious of the
view that administrative powers will be exercised according to their notion of good behavior and
good administration. When government is given more and more powers, public opinion becomes
more and more sensitive of the abuse and misuse of such powers. The judiciary has established
certain legal standards in this respect. It has its own weaknesses, but has great strength as well.
Administrative adjudication has come into existence as a result of the philosophy of welfare
State consequential socialization of law. Today the State exercise not only sovereign functions,
but as a progressive democratic State, it also seeks to ensure social security and social welfare
for the common masses. It regulates industrial relations, exercises over production and starts
many enterprses.The issues arising therefrom are socio-economic issues. It is not possible for the
ordinary courts of law to deal with all the issues of socio-economics policies.
As Wade and Philips rightly observe: Modern government gives rise to many disputes
which cannot appropriately be solved by applying objective legal principles of standards and
depend ultimately on what is desirable in the public interest as a matter of social policy. For
example industrial relations between the workers and the e management must be settled as soon
as possible. It is not in the interest of the parties to the disputes but of society at large. It is not
possible for the ordinary courts to decide these disputes expeditiously. At the same time, it is
necessary that such disputes should not be determined in arbitrary or autocratic manner.
Administrative Tribunal are therefore established to decide various quasijudicial issues in
place of ordinary Courts of law, Tribunals are recognized even by the constitution of India.

Definition of Administrative Tribunal

(a) General
Tribunal is an administrative body which exercises the power to adjudicate. In the Franks
Committee Report, Tribunals are not regarded as ordinary Courts. But they are not
accepted even as appendages of Government Departments. The view of the Committee
is that tribunals should be regarded as machinery provided by Parliament for
adjudication rather than as part of the machinery of administration. The essential point is
that in all these cases, Parliament has deliberately provided for a decision outside
independent of the Department concerned and intention of Parliament to provide for
independence of Tribunal is clear and unmistakable. According to Wade Tribunals are
administrative only because they are part of an administrative scheme for which a
Minister is responsible to Parliament, and because the reasons for preferring them to the
ordinary Courts are administrative reasons. Even in America the system of
Administrative adjudication has been developed. In this country administrative agencies
discharge the functions of Tribunals e.g. Commissions, Boards or Officers.
According to the dictionary meaning, Tribunals means seat or bench upon which a
judge or judges sit in a Court,, a Court of Justice. If used in these sense, the expression
is very wide as it includes even ordinary Courts of law whereas in administrative law this
expression is limited to adjudicating bodies other than the ordinary Courts of law
(b) Meaning of the Tribunal under the Indian Constitution
As regards the Indian context, the term Tribunal has been used under the Constitution
but has not been defined. From the functional point of view, the position of Tribunal is
somewhere between a Court and the government department exercising adjudicatory
powers Although in strict sense Tribunals are Courts of law, yet they are invested with
powers to adjudicate upon the issues affecting the rights of the citizens.
According to S.n. Jain, the term Tribunal has been used under the Indian Constitution
in three different senses(1) All administrative bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions, whether as a part or
parcel of the department or otherwise, may be termed as Tribunals. The only
distinguishing feature of these bodies as against other bodies exercising
administrative powers that these bodies required to follow the rules of natural justice
in rendering decisions.
(2) All those administrative adjudicatory bodies may be regarded as Tribunals which are
not under the control of the department involved in the dispute and therefore decide
disputes as a Judge free from any departmental bias. The Income-Tax Appellate
Tribunal may fall in this category as it is under the control of the Ministry of aw and
not Ministry of Finance and is free to decide matters impartially. Similarly another
Tribunal free from departmental control is Railway Rates Tribunal.
(3) The term Tribunal as used in Article 136 has a special meaning in the sense that the
authority must exercise inherent judicial powers of the State. Accordingly the test to
identify a Tribunal is not its control, composition or procedure but its function. As a

result of this functional test, even departmental bodies may be classified as Tribunal
, e.g. Custodian General of Evacuee Property, the Central Government exercising
powers under section 111(3) of the Companies Act,1956 the Central Board of
Revenue exercising appellate powers under section 190 of the Sea Customs Act 1878.

Reasons for Growth of Administrative Tribunals

The complexities of intensive form of government and synthetic structure of present

society have given rise to new problems requiring new solutions. One aspect of postindependence era is that the drive against poverty, illiteracy disease has statute
government embarked on massive plans of dispensation of benefits, public health,
education, planning, social security, transport, agriculture, industrialization and
redistribution of nations wealth. In these circumstances, administrative tribunals are
established for the following reasons:(i) Policy considerations
In the changed socio-economic context, while the Courts are accustomed to deal
with cases primarily according to law, the exigencies of modern government
postulate that some types of controversies be disposed of by applying not law,
pure and simple but
(ii) Inadequacy of Judicial system
The traditional judicial system proved inadequate to decide and settle all disputes
requiring resolution. It is most complicated, expensive and dilatory. It was not
possible to expect speedy disposal of even very important matters e.g. Disputes
between employer and employees, lock-outs and strikes etc. It was for these
reasons that Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts were established, which
possessed the technique and expertise to deal with such complex problems.
(iii)
Merits of the System of Administrative Adjudication
The system of administrative adjudication is cheap, speedy and flexible. Judicial
system is slow, costly, complex and formalistic. According to the Franks
Committee: Tribunals have certain characteristics which often give them
advantages over the Courts .These are cheapness,accesibilty,freedom from
technicality, expedition and expert knowledge of their particular subject.
(iv) Functional approach to socio-economic problems
Administrative Tribunals can avoid Technicalities. They adopt a functional rather
than a theoretical and legalistic approach. The traditional judicial system is
conservative, rigid and technical. Courts of law cannot decide cases without
formality and technicality. On the other hand Administrative Tribunals are not
bound to follow strict rules or procedure and evidence. It is, therefore that they
practical view of the matter to solve complex problems.
(v) Need for expertise
Sometimes, disputes are technical in nature. The traditional judicial system cannot
be expected to appreciate and decide them. The reason is obvious because the
judge is generalist. On the other hand, Administrative Tribunals are usually
manned by
experts who can deal with and solve these problems; e.g. Problems relating to
atomic energy, gas, electricity etc.
(vi) Preventive measures

Administrative authorities can resort to preventive measures: e.g., licensing, rate

fixing etc. Unlike ordinary courts of law, they have not to wait for the parties to
come before them with disputes. In number of cases, these preventive actions may
be more effective and useful than punishing a person after he has violated any
legal provision.
(vii)

Policing of preventive measures

Administrative authorities can take effective steps for policing of the aforesaid
preventive measures,e.g.,suspension, revocation or cancellation of license,
destruction of contaminated articles,etc.which are not feasible through the regular
Court of law.
(viii)
Functioning of Tribunals
Robson observes, Administrative Tribunals discharge their functions more
rapidly, more cheaply, and more efficiently than ordinary Courts.possess
greater technical knowledge and fewer prejudices against government..give
greater heed to the social interests involved. Decide disputes with conscious effort
at furthering social policy in the legislation.

Constitutional Recognition of Administrative Tribunals

There are provisions under the Constitution of India which recognize the existence and
importance of Tribunals. Articles 136 and 227 expressly mention the word Tribunal. As
provided under Articles 136, the Supreme Court has discretionary power to grant special leave to
appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any case or matter passed
or made by any court or Tribunal in the territory of India. Under Article 227, it is provided that

every High Court has supervisory power over al Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories
in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
The use of Administrative Tribunals as a mode of deciding disputes is on the increase because it
has all the benefits of a court without suffering from it limitations. It is for this advantage that
Part XIV-A has been inserted in the Constitution by the Forty Second Amendment Act, 1976
which confers power on the Parliament and the State Legislatures to establish Tribunals to deal
with specified subjects.
There are two Articles in Part XIV which provide for establishment of Tribunals. Article 323-A
lays down that Parliament may, by law, provide for the adjudication or trial by Administrative
Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to requirement and conditions of service of
persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of Union or of any
State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the
Government of India or of any Corporation owned or controlled by the Government.
Article 323-Blays down that the appropriate legislature may ,by law provide for the
adjudication or trial by Tribunals of any disputes , complaints or other offences with respect to all
or any matters enumerated therein with respect to which such legislature has power to make law.

Characteristics, Structure and Procedure of Administrative

Tribunal
Characteristics of Administrative Tribunal:
In Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees, the Supreme Court has observed that though tribunals
are clad in many of the trappings of a Court and though they exercise quasi-judicial
functions, they are not full-fledged Courts. Thus a tribunal is an adjudicating body which

decides controversies between the parties and exercises judicial powers as distinguished
from administrative functions and thus possess some of the trappings of a Court, but not
all. In this case while dealing with the issue whether an Industrial Tribunal established
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is Tribunal or not within the meaning of Article
136, the Supreme Court laid down that a tribunal must have following characteristics:
(i)
The proceeding before it must commence on an application which is in the
nature of a plaint.
(ii)
It has the same powers as regards discovery, inspection, taking evidence,
as are possessed by a civil Court.
(iii)
Witnesses are examined and cross-examined as in Court of law.
(iv)
A party may be represented by a legal practitioner.
(v)
The tribunal is required to decide on the basis of evidence adduced and
according to the provision of the statutes.
(vi)
Members of the tribunal are persons qualified to be judges.
Few more characteristics were added to this list by the Supreme Court is later decision:
(vii) It is required to sit in public.
(viii) It must be capable of giving determinative judgment or award affecting the
rights and obligations of parties.
(ix)
It must be endowed with States inherent judicial power, meaning thereby
that it has statuary origin.
Structure of Administrative Tribunal:
As administrative tribunals is the creation of statue and thus, it has a statuary origin. In
some cases they may be established by the executive under delegated legislation.
There is no uniform pattern in their organization. Diversity looms large in the structure of
administrative tribunals. An administrative tribunal may be an integral part of
administrative department which is given the task of implementing law and policy. These
bodies may have both adjudicatory and regulatory functions to discharge. In this way
even departmental bodies may be classified as tribunals, e.g. Custodian-General of
Evacuee Property, Central Government, Central Board of Revenue etc.
Sometimes, an administrative tribunal may be somewhat autonomous and may be not
integral part of department charged with the task of implementation of law and policy.
The term tribunal has no fixed connotation. In India it has wide constitutional
significance under Article 136 and includes even non-autonomous type of body. Even if
the term tribunal is used in strict sense we find that there are not many tribunals of
autonomous character. Some of the important areas where these tribunals function are:
Industrial Relations and labor welfare, income-tax, transport, e.g., railway and motor,
regulation of business and rent control.
A tribunal may consist of one member or more members .Where tribunal is always a
Chairman. At times legal knowledge or training may be prescribed to adjudicate,
sometimes no such qualifications may be laid down. Even Knowledge in some other
technical field may be required, e.g., a Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is to
consist of one legal and one accountant member.

As regards appointments and dismissal of members of tribunals, it is in hands of the

executive, except in the case of few tribunals where restrictions have been imposed. Thus
members of income tax Appellate. Tribunal are appointed through a Selection. Thus
members of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal are appointed through a Selection Committee
which consist of a judge of the Supreme Courts, President of the Tribunal and law
secretary of the Government of India. Further, as regards the tenure of the member of
tribunals, statutes are often silent. Thus the question of tenure is left to the government o
fix the period of appointment. As for termination of service of the members of the
tribunals is in the hands of the government under the statutes except in one case, e.g.
Monopolies Commission where the matter is required to be referred to the Supreme
Court. There are many cases where judicial officers act as a tribunal.
In the strict sense, tribunal is an autonomous body which is not a part and parcel of the
government department.
Procedure of Administrative Tribunal:
(i)
General
The reasons which are responsible for the growth of administrative tribunals
testify the truth that they are not Courts.Econimy, method of doing act
immediately, technical knowledge and experience to act judicially in particular
areas, assistance from them for policies for social reform are the reasons for their
establishment. Therefore administrative tribunals do not follow judicial
procedure fully. Even then, it is necessary for the tribunals to follow the
principles for the fairness of verdict. There are two principles of natural justice
which are universal:
The first is right to hearing and the second is rule against bias.
(ii)

(iii)

Bewildering variety of procedure-Demerits of Tribunal System

I India, there is no uniform to be followed by the administrative tribunals. There
is a bewildering variety of procedure. Sometimes, the tribunal is endowed with
the powers of a Civil Court in matters of compelling attendance of witness and
production of documents. But in a large numbers of cases the tribunal is required
to follow only the minimum norms of procedure as embodied in the principles of
natural justice This is so because the principles are not rigid and do not apply
uniformity in all situations.However,such uncertainty is sometimes responsible
factor in justifying arbitrary actions.
Principles of natural justice
In absence of a statue laying down procedure, principles of natural justice must
be followed by administrative tribunals. The Franks Committee, ITS Report, has
proclaimed three procedural principles:
(i)

Openness, (ii)
propounded:

fairness, and (iii) impartially. The Committee

In the field of tribunals openness appears to us to require the publicity of

proceedings and knowledge of the essential reasoning underlying the
decisions; fairness to require the adoption of clear procedure which
enables parties to their rights, to present their case fully and to know the
case which they have to meet; and impartially to require the freedom of
tribunals from influence, real or apparent of departments concerned with
the subject matter of decisions.
The same principle have been accepted in India also.

Types of Administrative Tribunals

There are different types of administrative tribunals, which are governed by the statues, rules,
and regulations of the Central Government as well as State Governments.

Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)

The enactment of Administrative Tribunals Act in 1985 opened a new chapter in administering
justice to the aggrieved government servants. It owes its origin to Article 323A of the
Constitution which empowers the Central Government to set up by an Act of Parliament, the
Administrative Tribunals for adjudication of disputes and complaints with respective recruitment

and conditions of service of persons appointed to the public services and posts in connection
with the Union and the States
The Tribunals enjoy the powers of the High Court in respect of service matters of the employees
covered by the Act. They are not bound by the technicalities of the Code of Civil Procedure, but
have to abide by the Principles of Natural Justice. They are distinguished from the ordinary
courts with regard to their jurisdiction and procedures. This makes them free from the shackles
of the ordinary courts and enables them to provide speedy and inexpensive justice.
The Act provides for the establishment of Central Administrative Tribunal and State
Administrative Tribunals. The CAT was established in 1985. The Tribunal consists of a
Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members. These Members are drawn from the judicial as well as
the administrative streams. The appeal against the decisions of the CAT lies with the Supreme
Court of India.

Customs and Excise Revenue Appellate Tribunal (CERAT)

The Parliament passed the CERAT Act in 1986. The Tribunal adjudicate disputes, Complaints or
offences with regard to customs and excise revenue. Appeals from the orders of the CERAT lies
with the Supreme Court.

Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board (FERAB)

The Board was set up under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. A person who is
aggrieved by an order of adjudication for causing breach or committing offences under the Act
can file an appeal before the FERAB.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

This Tribunal has been constituted under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tribunal has its benches
in various cities and appeals can be filed before it by an aggrieved person against the order
passed by the Deputy Commissioner or Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Director of
Income Tax. An appeal against the order of the Tribunal lies to the High Court. An appeal also
lies to the Supreme Court if the High Court deems fit.

Railway Rates Tribunal

This Tribunal was set up under the Indian Railways Act, 1989. It adjudicates matters pertaining
to the complaints against the railway administration. These may be related to the discriminatory
or unreasonable rates, unfair charges or preferential treatment meted out by the railway
administration. The appeal against the order of the Tribunal lies with the Supreme Court.

Industrial Tribunal

This Tribunal has been set up under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It can be constituted by
both the Central as well as State governments. The Tribunal looks into the dispute between the
employers and the workers in matters relating to wages, the period and mode of payment,

compensation and other allowances, hours of work, gratuity, retrenchment and closure of the
establishment. The appeal against the decision of the Tribunal lies with the Supreme Court.
At present and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in 'Chandra Kumar's case, the
administrative tribunals are rendering the following diversified judicial duties/functions:
1. Functioning as a 'Court of first instance; by adjudicating the Original Applications
(shortly called O.A.s) filed by the Government employees and also Miscellaneous
Applications, Contempt Applications and Review Applications, arising out of them.
2. Adjudicating the cases remanded by the High Courts, in exercise of its power of 'Judicial
Review'.
3. Adjudicating cases remanded by the Supreme Court of India.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Administrative Tribunal

Advantages of Administrative Tribunal
Administrative adjudication is a dynamic system of administration, which serves, more
adequately than any other method, the varied and complex needs of the modern society.
The main advantages of the administrative tribunals are:
a) Flexibility

Administrative adjudication has brought about flexibility and adaptability in the judicial as well
as administrative tribunals. For instance, the courts of law exhibit a good deal of conservatism
and inelasticity of outlook and approach. The justice they administer may become out of
harmony with the rapidly changing social conditions. Administrative adjudication, not restrained
by rigid rules of procedure and canons of evidence, can remain in tune with the varying phases of
social and economic life.
b) Adequate Justice
In the fast changing world of today, administrative tribunals are not only the most appropriated
means of administrative action, but also the most effective means of giving fair justice to the
individuals. Lawyers, who are more
Concerned about aspects of law, find it difficult to adequately assess the needs of the modern
welfare society and to locate the individuals place in it.
c) Less Expensive
Administrative justice ensures cheap and quick justice. As against this, procedure in the law
courts is long and cumbersome and litigation is costly. It involves payment of huge court fees,
engagement of lawyers and meeting of other incidental charges. Administrative adjudication, in
most cases, requires no stamp fees. Its procedures are simple and can be easily understood by a
layman.
d) Relief to Courts
The system also gives the much-needed relief to ordinary courts of law, which are already
overburdened with numerous suits.
Disadvantages of Administrative Tribunals
Even though administrative adjudication is essential and useful in modern day administration, we
should not be blind to the defects from which it suffers or the dangers it poses to a democratic
polity. Some of the main drawbacks are mentioned below.
a) Administrative adjudication is a negation of Rule of Law. Rule of Law ensures equality before
law for everybody and the supremacy of ordinary law and due procedure of law over
governmental arbitrariness. But administrative tribunals, with their separate laws and procedures
often made by themselves, puts a serious limitation upon the celebrated principles of Rule of
Law.
b) Administrative tribunals have in most cases, no set procedures and sometimes they violate
even the principles of natural justice.
c) Administrative tribunals often hold summary trials and they do not follow any precedents. As
such it is not possible to predict the course of future decisions.
d) The civil and criminal courts have a uniform pattern of administering justice and centuries of
experience in the administration of civil and criminal laws have borne testimony to the

advantages of uniform procedure. A uniform code of procedure in administrative adjudication is

not there.
e) Administrative tribunals are manned by administrators and technical heads who may not have
the background of law or training of judicial work. Some of them may not possess the
independent outlook of a Judge.

Administrative Tribunal & Courts

Administrative tribunal resembles a Court in certain aspects. Both are constituted by State
and invested with judicial powers. In this sense, they are adjudicating bodies. As has been
observed by the Supreme Court in Associated Cement Companies Ltd v. P.N. Sharma the
basic and fundamental feature which is common to both the Courts and tribunals is that they
discharge judicial functions and exercise judicial powers which inherently vest in a sovereign
State.
However, it must be noted that an administrative tribunal is not a Court. A tribunal has some
of the trappings of a Court but not all. Therefore it follows must be distinguished:

(i)

(ii)

(iii)
(iv)
(v)

An ordinary Court is part of the traditional judicial system. Judicial powers of the
Court are derived from the state. But an administrative tribunal agency created by a
statue and invested with judicial powers. Basically, it is a part and parcel of the
Executive organ of the State, exercising executive and judicial powers. As Lord
Green says administrative tribunals perform hybrid function.
Judges of ordinary Courts are independent in respect of their tenure, terms and
conditions of service. But members of administrative tribunals are entirely in hands of
government in respect of matters of service.
An ordinary Court is generally presided over by an officer trained in law but the
President or a member of a tribunal may not necessarily be trained in law as well.
A judge of ordinary Court must be an impartial arbiter. But an administrative tribunal
may be a party to be dispute to be decided by it.
A Court of law is bound by precedents, principles of res judicata and estoppel.But
administrative tribunal is not bound by them.

Conclusion
Hence From this topic I conclude that in a socialist society, bulk of cases are not decide by the
ordinary Courts. When a dispute arises between an administrative agency and a private person, it
is settled by the administration, this is called administrative adjudication and Tribunal is an
administrative body which exercises the power to adjudicate.

Administrative tribunals are specialised governmental agencies established

under federal or provincial legislation to implement legislative policy. Some
public boards and public decision makers also have had powers of decision
making conferred upon them by statute. Such powers of decision making are
conferred upon administrative tribunals, boards or other decision makers in
order to provide a more expeditious, less formal and sometimes less expensive
method (than the courts) for resolving certain types of disputes or issues.
Administrative tribunals also provide a forum in which complex issues can be
decided by adjudicators with expertise in the particular field.

While most tribunals are required (by common law or statute) to follow some
basic rules of procedure, there is no specific set of rules that applies universally.
The procedure to be followed by a tribunal may be found in the enabling statute
or related regulation and in rules, guidelines, or directives formulated by the
tribunal. Procedures may also be set out in a notice issued for a particular
proceeding or they may be a matter of unwritten tribunal policy or practice.1
Ontario, for instance, has enacted a minimum code of procedure in
the Statutory Powers Procedure Act,2 which some tribunals are required to
follow.
The fact that no procedural rules are prescribed does not free a tribunal, board,
officer or public decision maker from all procedural constraints. When statutory
decision makers perform a judicial or quasi-judicial decision making function,
they are governed by common law procedural principles. The standard of
procedural fairness to which a party before an administrative agency may be
entitled will vary with the context.
In some cases, the seriousness of the potential impact of a decision on a party
will require almost court-like procedures. In such cases, it is often said that the
party to the administrative proceeding in question will be entitled to a decision
in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Natural Justice
The principles of natural justice include the right to be heard, and the right to an
impartial decision maker. A party who has a right to be heard is entitled to
sufficient prior notice of the proceeding so that the party has the opportunity to
prepare his or her case, attend before a decision maker and make
representations. The right to proper notice also includes the right to know the
case that must be met; in other words, proper notice will include providing
details of the case to the responding party.
An impartial decision-maker is one who is free of a reasonable apprehension of
bias, whether personally or institutionally. Reasonable apprehension of personal

bias might result when, for instance, a decision maker has a pecuniary interest
in the outcome of the proceeding, or a prior relationship with one of the parties.
Fairness
In some cases, the governing legislation will contemplate a very informal kind of
decision. In such circumstances, particularly where the impact of a decision may
be relatively minor, a party to an administrative proceeding may not be entitled
to full natural justice. Even where this is the case, however, courts can assess
the procedural adequacy of decisions made by tribunals, boards or public
officials based on the doctrine of fairness.
At minimum, the doctrine of fairness requires that before a decision adverse to a
persons interests is made, that person should be told the case that they have to
meet and should be given an opportunity to respond. This ensures that the
person to be affected by the decision is given an opportunity to influence the
decision. Additionally, the information received from that person should assist
the decision maker in arriving at a rational and informed decision.