Judgment Kania, C.J.I.. (On behalf of himself and Mahajan, Das and Bose JJ.) - In these appeals the question whether the Industrial Tribunal ( Bank Disputes) had jurisdiction to make the awards has been directed by the Ct. to be tried as a preliminary issue. The decision depends on the true construction of Ss. 7, 8, 15 &16 Industrial Disputes Act. On this question, the agreed statement of facts shown that by a notfn. of the Govt. of India dated 13-6-1949, the Central Govt. constituted an Industrial Tribunal for the adjudication of industrial disputes in banking cos. consisting of Mr. K. C. Sen, Chairman, Mr. S. P. Varma & Mr. J. N. Mazumdar. A second notfn. dated 24-8-1949 was thereafter issued as follows: "In exercise of the power conferred by sub s. (1), S. 8, Industrial Disputes Act, the Central Govt. was pleased to appoint Mr. N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar as a member of the Industrial Tribunal constituted by the notfns. of the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Labour dated 13-6-1949, in the place of Mr. S. P. Varma whose services have ceased to be available" The Tribunal commenced its regular sittings at Bombay from the 12 to 16-9-1949. It thereafter sat at Delhi & Patna between 19-9-1949 & 3-4-1950. Further sittings were held, at some of which Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar was absent from 23-11-1949 to 20-2-1950 as his services were placed at the disposal of the Ministry of External Affairs as a member of the Indo-Pakistan Boundary Disputes Tribunal. Between 23-11-1949 & 20-2-1950 , Mr. Sen & Mr. Mazumdar together sat at several places & made certain awards. Those awards have been accepted by the Govt. u/S. 15 of the Act & published in the Gazette as the awards of the Tribunal. The Tribunal held its sittings in Bombay to hear general issues from 16-1-1950 & concluded them on 3-4-1950 . In the agreed statement of facts, it is stated that the services of Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar were not available to the Tribunal from the afternoon of 23-11-1949 to the forenoon of 20-2-1950. The Tribunal held its sittings in Bombay to hear general issues from 16-1-1950 & concluded them on 3-4-1950 . In the agreed statement of facts, it is stated that the services of Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar were not available to the Tribunal from the afternoon of 23-11-1949 to the forenoon of 20-2-1950. From 16-1-1950 upto 20-2-1950, several matters, particularly including 15 items covering, inter alia, Issues 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 23, 27, 28, 33, 34, 37 & dealing with the question of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in respect of officers regarding bank having branches in more than one Province & banks in liquadation, question of retrospective effect to be given to the award, question relating to provident & guarantee fund & allowances to special categories of workmen, were dealt with by the Tribunal. From the notes of the proceedings of the Tribunal it appears that as numerous banks & workmen were parties to the proceedings, some workmen who had not found it convenient to attend throughout appeared & put forth their views in respect of the aforesaid issues & questions after Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar started his work from the afternoon of 20-2-1950 again by sitting with Mr. Sen & Mr. Mazumdar. 2. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal of the aforesaid three persons to make the award is disputed on two grounds. (1) That when Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar s services ceased to be available as mentioned in the agreed statement of facts, the remaining two members had to be re-appointed to constitute a Tribunal. (2) That when Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar began to sit again with Mr. Sen & Mr. Mazumdar from the forenoon of 20-2-1950, it was imperative to issue a notfn. constituting a tribunal u /S. 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The argument is that in the absence of Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar the two members had no jurisdiction to hear anything at all without the appropriate notfn. & that Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar s services having ceased to be available on 23-11-1949, he cannot sit again with the other two members to form the Tribunal in the absence of a notfn. u /S. 7. 3. In order to appreciate the correct position, it is necessary to consider the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act. It envisages the establishment of a Conciliation Board, a Ct. of Inquiry & a Tribunal for adjudication. Relevant portions of Ss. u /S. 7. 3. In order to appreciate the correct position, it is necessary to consider the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act. It envisages the establishment of a Conciliation Board, a Ct. of Inquiry & a Tribunal for adjudication. Relevant portions of Ss. 5, 6, 7, 8, 15 & 16 of the Act which only are material for the present discussion run as follows : 5. (1) "The appropriate Govt. may as occasion arises by notfn. in the official Gazette constitute a Board of Conciliation for promoting the settlement of an industrial dispute. (2) A Board shall consist of a chairman & two or four other members, as the appropriate Govt. thinks fit. (3) The chairman shall be an independent person & the other members shall be persons appointed in equal numbers to represent the parties to the dispute & any person appointed to represent a party shall be appointed on the recommendation of that party : * * * * * (4) A Board, having the prescribed quorum may act notwithstanding the absence of the chairman or any of its members or any vacancy in its number. Provided that if the appropriate Govt. notifies the Board that the services of the chairman or any other member have ceased to be available, the Board shall not act until a new chairman or member, as the case may be, has been appointed. " 6. (1) "The appropriate Govt. may as occasion arises by notfn. in the official Gazette constitute a Ct. of Inquiry for inquiring into any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to an industrial dispute. (2) A Ct. may consist of one independent person or of such number of independent persons as the appropriate Govt. may think fit & where a Ct. consists of two or more members, one of them shall be appointed as the chairman. (3) A Ct. having the prescribed quorum, may act notwithstanding the absence of the chairman or any of its members or any vacancy in its number. Provided that, if the appropriate Govt. notifes the Ct. that the services of the chairman have ceased to be available, the Ct. shall not act until a new chairman has been appointed." 7. (1) "The appropriate Govt. may constitute one or more Industrial Tribunals for the adjudication of industrial disputes in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Provided that, if the appropriate Govt. notifes the Ct. that the services of the chairman have ceased to be available, the Ct. shall not act until a new chairman has been appointed." 7. (1) "The appropriate Govt. may constitute one or more Industrial Tribunals for the adjudication of industrial disputes in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) A Tribunal shall consist of such number of member as the appropriate Govt. thinks fit. Where the Tribunal consists of two or more members, one of them shall be appointed as the chairman. (3) Every member of the Tribunal shall be an independent person, (a) who is or has been a Judge of a H. C. or a Dist. J. or (b) is qualified for appointment as a Judge of a H. C. : Provided that the appointment to a Tribunal of any person not qualified under part (a) shall be made in consultation with the H. C. of the Province in which the Tribunal has or is intended to have, its usual place of sitting. " 8. (1) "If the services of the chairman of a Board or of the chairman or other member of a Ct. or Tribunal cease to be available at any time the appropriate Govt. shall, in the case of a chairman, & may in the case of any other member, appoint another independent person to fill the vacancy & the proceedings shall be continued before the Board. Ct. or Tribunal so reconstituted. (2) Where a Ct. or Tribunal consists of one person only & his services cease to be available the appropriate Govt. shall appoint another independent person in his place, & proceedings shall be continued before the person so appointed. (3) Where the services of any member of a Board other than the chairman have ceased to be available, the appropriate Govt. shall appoint in the manner specified in sub-s. (3), S. 5 another person to take his place, & the proceedings shall be continued before the Board so reconstituted." 15. (1) "Where an industrial dispute has been refd. to a Tribunal for adjudication, it shall hold its proceedings expeditiously & shall, as soon as practicable on the conclusion hereof, submit its award to the appropriate Govt. (2) On receipt of such award, the appropriate Govt. (1) "Where an industrial dispute has been refd. to a Tribunal for adjudication, it shall hold its proceedings expeditiously & shall, as soon as practicable on the conclusion hereof, submit its award to the appropriate Govt. (2) On receipt of such award, the appropriate Govt. shall by order in writing declare the award to be binding : * * * * * * (4) Save as provided in the proviso to sub-s. 8, S.19, an award declared to be binding under this section shall not be called in question in any manner." 16. "The report of a Board or Ct. & the award of a Tribunal shall be in writing & shall be signed by all the members of the Board, Ct. or Tribunal, as the case may be: Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent any member of the Board, Ct. or Tribunal from recording a minute of dissent from a report or award from any recommendation made therein." 4. Confining our attention to the aspect of absence of members at the sittings of the different bodies & what results follow therefrom, it is clear that under S. 5 (4) when a member of a Board of conciliation is absent or there is vacancy, the Board is permitted to act, notwithstanding such absence, provided there is the prescribed quorum. Such quorum is fixed by the rules framed under the Act. According to the proviso to this sub-section however if the appropriate Govt. notifies the Board that the services of the chairman or any other member have ceased to be available, the Board shall not act until a new chairman or a member, as the case may be, has been appointed. Reading these two parts together, it is therefore clear that a distinction is drawn between the situation arising from the absence of the chairman or any of its members & a vacancy in the Board, & the position when the Govt. has intimated that the services of a chairman or member have ceased to be available. The words "having the prescribed quorum" put a further limitation on the right of the remaining members of the Board to act, when all of them are not acting together. has intimated that the services of a chairman or member have ceased to be available. The words "having the prescribed quorum" put a further limitation on the right of the remaining members of the Board to act, when all of them are not acting together. The proviso thus makes it clear that when the services of a chairman or member have ceased to be available & that fact has been notified to the Board by the appropriate Govt. the remaining members have no jurisdiction to act in the name of the Board. This all the contingencies of temporary or casual absence, as well as permanent vacancy, & the contingency of the chairman or a member s services having ceased to be available are contemplated & provided for. In the same way it in the same terms, provision is made in respect of the Ct. of Inquiry in S. 6 (3). The provisions as regards the Tribunal are found in S. 7. No other Section deals with the establishment of the Tribunal. The first clause empowers the appropriate Govt. to constitute one or more industrial tribunals having the functions allotted to it under the Act. Sub-cl. 2 provides that a tribunal shall consist of such number of members as the appropriate Govt. thinks fit. This clause, therefore, authorizes the appropriate Govt. to fix the number of members which will constitute the tribunal. Sub-cl. 3 & the proviso deal with the qualifications of individuals to be members with which we are not concerned. Although in this section there is no provision like Ss. 5 (1) & 6 (1) requiring a notfn. of the constitution of the tribunal in the official Gazette, the deficiency is made up by R. 5, Industrial Disputes Rules. 1949, framed by the Govt. u /S. 38 of the Act. The rule provides that the appointment of a Board, Ct. or Tribunal "together with the names of the persons constituting the Board, Ct. or Tribunal" shall be notified in the official Gazette. It is, therefore, obligatory on the appropriate Govt. to notify the composition of the Tribunal & also the names of the persons constituting the same. In respect of a tribunal which is entrusted with the work of adjudicating upon disputes between employers & employees which have not been settled otherwise, this provision is absolutely essential. It is, therefore, obligatory on the appropriate Govt. to notify the composition of the Tribunal & also the names of the persons constituting the same. In respect of a tribunal which is entrusted with the work of adjudicating upon disputes between employers & employees which have not been settled otherwise, this provision is absolutely essential. It cannot be left in doubt to the employers or the employees as to who are the persons authorized to adjudicate upon their disputes. This is also in accordance with notfns. of appointments of public servants discharging judicial or quasi judicial functions. The important thing therefore to note is that the number forming the tribunal & the names of the members have both to be notified in the official Gazette for the proper & valid constitution of the tribunal. 5. It is significant that there is no provision corresponding to s. 5 (4) or 6 (3) in S. 7. S. 15 of the Act provides that when an industrial dispute has been refd. to a tribunal for adjudication, it shall hold its proceedings expeditiously & as soon as practicable & at the conclusion thereof submit its award to the appropriate Govt. It is thus clear & indeed it is not disputed that the tribunal as a body should sit together & the award has to be the result of the joint deliberations of all members of the tribunal acting in a joint capacity. S. 16 requires that all members of the tribunal shall sign the award. This again emphasizes that the function of the tribunal is joint & it is not open to any member to refrain from signing the award. If the award is not signed by all members it will be invalid as it will not be the award of the tribunal. 6. In the light of the provisions of S. 7 the question arising for consideration is, what was the duty of the Govt. when the services of Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar ceased to be available. The two telegrams exchanged between Mr. Sen & the Govt. show that the Govt. took the view that a vacancy had occurred & they did not think of filling it up at the time. In the first place, on the true construction of the Act, was it not obligatory on the Govt. Chandrasekhara Aiyar ceased to be available. The two telegrams exchanged between Mr. Sen & the Govt. show that the Govt. took the view that a vacancy had occurred & they did not think of filling it up at the time. In the first place, on the true construction of the Act, was it not obligatory on the Govt. to notify to the contesting parties that it had decided not to fill up the vacancy ? Is it open to them to leave the parties in doubt in respect of a tribunal entrusted with the work of adjudicating upon very important disputes between parties ? In our opinion, the whole scheme of the Act leads to the conclusion that the Govt. must notify its decision as to what it desired to do, i.e., whether it intended to fill up the vacancy or not & thereupon notify what members were going to constitute the tribunal. We are led to that conclusion because a tribunal of three consisting of Mr. Sen, Mr. Mazumdar & Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar is a different tribunal from one consisting of two, viz., of Mr. Sen & Mr. Mazumdar only. 7. In this setting, it is next necessary to consider the words of S. 8 on which strong reliance is placed on behalf of the resps. The marginal note of that section is "filling of vacancies." The section deals with the Board, the Ct. & the Tribunal in its clauses. Under sub-s. 1, the Legislature clearly contemplates that when the services of a member cease to be available at any time there will arise a vacancy. This sub-section deals with the situation in three stages. The first question is, have the services of a member, (& this includes, for the present discussion, a chairman) ceased to be available ? If so, the vacancy having thus arisen, the next question is, what can be done by the appropriate Govt. ? If the vacancy is filled up by making the appointment, the final question, is, how the proceedings shall go on before the Board, Ct. or Tribunal so reconstituted ? It was argued on behalf of the resps. that it was for the appropriate Govt. alone to pronounce whether the services of a member had ceased to be available at any time & that was not a matter for the decision of the Ct. or Tribunal so reconstituted ? It was argued on behalf of the resps. that it was for the appropriate Govt. alone to pronounce whether the services of a member had ceased to be available at any time & that was not a matter for the decision of the Ct. In our opinion, what is left to the option of the Govt. is, in case of the services of a member ceasing to be available, to appoint or not to appoint. Those stages having passed, the appropriate Govt., under the section, is obliged to appoint another person to fill the vacancy, if the vacancy is created in respect of a chairman. In respect of the vacancy of a member s post, the Govt. is given the option to appoint or not to appoint another person. The concluding words of the sub-section so reconstituted" clearly relate only to the contingency of the Govt. making the appointment of another independent person in the vacancy. The concluding part of that sub-section provides for the continuance of the proceedings before the body so reconstituted. Sub-s. 2 also provides that where Ct. or tribunal consists only of one person & his services have ceased to be available, on the appointment of another independent person the proceedings shall be continued before the person so appointed & it will not be necessary to start the proceedings from the beginning before that person. S. 8 (3) provides for the contingency of the services of a member of a Board not being available. It requires the appropriate Govt. to make the appointment as provided in S. 5 (3) & further provides that notwithstanding the inclusion of a totally new man in that vacancy, the proceedings shall be continued before the Board so reconstituted. Reading the three clauses together, therefore, it is quite clear that the object of S. 8 is to make specific provisions in respect of situations when the Govt. must or does fill up vacancies in the event of the services of a member or chairman not being available & the consequences of a totally new man filling up the vacancy. As we read the Act, that is the total object & intention of this section. It does not contemplate the consequences of the Govt. not making an appointment where it has the option not to do so. The emphasis on the words "so reconstituted" in sub-ss. As we read the Act, that is the total object & intention of this section. It does not contemplate the consequences of the Govt. not making an appointment where it has the option not to do so. The emphasis on the words "so reconstituted" in sub-ss. (1) & (3) & the concluding words of each of those clauses clearly bear out this intention of the legislature. 8. It was contended that although no provision is made in S. 8 (1) about what is to happen if the Govt. did not fill up the vacancy, it is implied that in that event the remaining members can continue the work. We are unable to accept that argument. In the first place, as pointed out above, the object of S. 8 is to provide in what cases vacancies must be filled up & how the proceedings should continue on the vacancy being filled up. It does not deal at all with the situation arising from the not filling up of the vacancy by the Govt. In this connection the provisions of Ss. 5 (4) & 6 (3) have been already noted. When the Legislature wanted to provide that in spite of the temporary absence or permanent vacancy the remaining members should be authorised to proceed with the work they have made express provision to that effect. If in the case of a Board or Ct. of inquiry, neither of which is adjudicating any disputes, such a provision was considered necessary to enable the remaining members to act as a body, we think that the absence of such provision in respect of the Tribunal, which adjudicates on the disputes & whose quasi judicial work is admittedly of a joint character & responsibility leads to the irresistible conclusion that in the absence of one or more members the rest are not competent to act as a Tribunal at all. Again the provisos to S. 5 (4) & 6 (3) are important. Under those provisos when the Govt. intimated to the remaining members that the services of one have ceased to be available," the rest have no right to act as the Board or Ct. It appears under the circumstances proper to hold that in respect of a Tribunal when the services of a member have ceased to be available, the rest by themselves have no right to act as the Tribunal. 9. It appears under the circumstances proper to hold that in respect of a Tribunal when the services of a member have ceased to be available, the rest by themselves have no right to act as the Tribunal. 9. The qnestion which we have got to consider can be divided in two stages. On the appointment of Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar as a member of the Boundary Tribunal, did his services cease to be available within the meaning of S. 8 & thereby was a vacancy created ? The parties have put before us only two telegrams exchanged between the chairman & Mr. Mazumdar on the one hand & the Central Govt. on the other, to reach our conclusion about the situation arising from Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar joining the Boundary Tribunal. Certain Govt. notfns. published in May & June 1950, i.e., over three or four months after Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar finished his work on the Boundary Tribunal have been put, before us, but in our opinion these ex-post facto notfns. cannot help us in deciding the important question u/s 8. It is obvious that on the date the appointment of Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar as a member of the Boundary Tribunal was made it could not have been known how long that Tribunal would take to complete its work. In any event, the evidence put before us as of that date does not show that the appointment was for a short time. The Boundary Tribunal s work may have lasted for a month or a year. Having regard to the urgency & the necessity of quick disposal of industrial disputes recognised in S. 15, the deputation of a member of such a Tribunal to another Tribunal, whose work may be of an indefinite duration, obviously makes the services of the member cease to be available to the Industrial Tribunal within the meaning of S. 8 so as to bring about a vacancy. The later statement in the Govt. notfn. of May 1950 that Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar s services were lent to the External Affairs Ministry "from 23-11-1949 to 20-2-1950" appears to be more a notfn. for the purpose of the Accountant General & the Audit departments of the Govt. than a disclosure of the mind of the Govt. when the appointment was made on the 23rd of November. When Mr. Sen, as Chairman, & Mr. for the purpose of the Accountant General & the Audit departments of the Govt. than a disclosure of the mind of the Govt. when the appointment was made on the 23rd of November. When Mr. Sen, as Chairman, & Mr. Mazumdar held their first sitting in the absence of Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar, an objection was raised about the constitution of the tribunal. Thereupon Mr. Sen, & Mr. Mazumdar conveyed to the Govt. what had happened at the meeting. The Govt. was, therefore, clearly faced with the problem as to what it wanted to do. The reply telegram from the Govt. asked Mr. Sen & Mr. Mazumdar to go on with the proceedings. It further stated that the Govt. might fill up the vacancy later on. The question for consideration is, what is the effect of this telegram of the Govt ? In the light of the provisions of S. 8 that telegram can only mean that the Govt had decided not to fill up the vacancy. If a vacancy had occurred they had to make the appointment or state that they will not do so. They cannot defer their decision on the question of filling up the vacancy & in the interval direct the remaining members to go on with the reference. That seems to us to be the correct position because the fundamental basis on which the tribunal has to do its work is that an members must sit & take part in its proceedings jointly. If a member was casually or temporarily absent owing to illness, the remaining members cannot have the power to proceed with the reference in the name of the tribunal, having regard to the absence of any provision like S. 5 (4) or 6 (3) in respect of the tribunal. The Govt. had notified the constitution of this tribunal by the two notfns. summarized in the earlier part of the judgment & thereby had constituted the tribunal to consist of three members & those three were Mr. Sen, Chairman, Mr. Mazumdar & Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar. Proceeding with the adjudication, in the absence of one, undermines the basic principle of the joint work & responsibility of the Tribunal & of all its members to make the award. Moreover, in their telegram the Govt. had not suggested that no vacancy had occurred. Sen, Chairman, Mr. Mazumdar & Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar. Proceeding with the adjudication, in the absence of one, undermines the basic principle of the joint work & responsibility of the Tribunal & of all its members to make the award. Moreover, in their telegram the Govt. had not suggested that no vacancy had occurred. Indeed, they recognised the fact of a vacancy having occurred but stated that they might make the appointment later on. If those words are properly construed, without any outside considerations, it is clear that the Govt. intended that the remaining two members of the Tribunal should proceed with the adjudication as a tribunal. This direction in fact was accepted & the two members proceeded with the reference & made certain awards. Those awards were sent to the Govt. u/s. 15(2) & the Govt. by its order declared the awards to be binding, & published them in the official Gazette. Those awards are signed only by Mr. Sen & Mr. Mazumdar. Reading those awards with notfns. & the provision of Ss. 15 & 16 it is , therefore, clear that between 23-11-1949 & 20-2-1950, the Govt. "intended" the tribunal to consist only of Mr. Sen & Mr. Mazumdar. It was not & cannot be seriously disputed that in the event of the govt. deciding to fill up the vacancy, a notfn. had to issued. The question is, why & under what rule? The answer clearly is that they had to do it because of R. 5 The reason why intimation of a new man forming a member of the tribunal has to be publicly given, in our opinion, applies with equal force when a tribunal initially constituted of three persons, viz Mr. Sen, Mr. Mazumdar & Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar, is, by the Govt. decision, as from a certain date to be a tribunal of Mr. Sen & Mr. Mazumdar only. The word reconstituted is properly used in S. 8 because when a new member is introduced in the panel so far performing its duties, it is a reconstitution, but the words of S. 8 do not exclude the obligation on the Govt. to issue a notfn. under R. 5 when there is not a reconstitution, but a new constitution of the tribunal. The Govt., however, did not give effect to its intention by issuing a fresh notfn. u/s. 7. Therefore, when the services of Mr. to issue a notfn. under R. 5 when there is not a reconstitution, but a new constitution of the tribunal. The Govt., however, did not give effect to its intention by issuing a fresh notfn. u/s. 7. Therefore, when the services of Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar ceased to be available & they decided that another independent person was not to be appointed to fill the vacancy, there arose the situation when only two members constituted the tribunal & for the constitution of such tribunal no notfn. u/s. 7 of the Act was issued. To enable such a tribunal of two persons to function, under the provisions of the Act, a notfn. u/s. 7 of the Act, in our opinion, was absolutely essential. The work of the two members in the absence of such a notfn, cannot be treated as the work of a tribunal established under the Act & all their actions are without jurisdiction. 10. It was contended on behalf of the resps. that when Mr. Chandresekhara Aiyar left for the Boundary Tribunal, there arose a temporary absence which it was not necessary to fill up & the remaining two members had jurisdiction under the Act to proceed with the adjudication. In our opinion, this contention cannot be accepted. In the first place, in the agreed statement of facts, it is not stated that there was any temporary absence. Again, as we have pointed out the Govt. by its telegram of the 29th of November accepted the position that a vacancy had occurred & no question of temporary absence therefore arises for our consideration. An analogy sought to be drawn between the temporary absence on leave or on deputation of a Judge is misleading having regard to the fact that u/S. 7 the Govt. has to decide at the initial stage how many members & who will constitute the tribunal & have to notify the same. That step having been taken, it is not within the power or competence of the Govt. to direct a few members only of such tribunal to proceed with the adjudication for however short or long time it be. In our opinion, S. 8 has no application to that situation. That step having been taken, it is not within the power or competence of the Govt. to direct a few members only of such tribunal to proceed with the adjudication for however short or long time it be. In our opinion, S. 8 has no application to that situation. In this connection, it may be useful to notice that under R. 12 it was provided that "when a tribunal consists of two or more members, the tribunal may, with the consent of the parties, act notwithstanding any casual vacancy in its number . . . ." This rule clearly shows that even when there was a casual vacancy & the remaining members desired to proceed with the work they could do so only with the consent of the parties. This rule framed u/S. 38 of the Act strongly supports the contention that if the Act impliedly gave power under S. 8 to the remaining two members of the tribunal to act, as contended on behalf of the resps. there was no necessity at all for making this rule. Although this rule was repealed on the 3rd of December, it was in operation when the services of Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar. ceased to be available to the tribunal as from the 23rd of November. If in the case of temporary absence, the consent of the parties was essential to enable the remaining members to act it certainly follows that the objection, to their working as a tribunal, when there is no consent & the absence is not casual but is due to the services of one of the members having ceased to be available, is fatal. It follows, therefore, that all awards made by Mr. Sen & Mr. Mazumdar, after the services of Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar ceased to be available, were not made by a tribunal duly constituted u/S. 7 & those awards are, therefore, void. 11. It was contended that by directing Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar to work again as a member of the Banks Tribunal in February 1950 the Govt. had filled up the vacancy u/S. 8. In our opinion this position cannot be supported on the admitted facts. As regards filling up of a vacancy u/S. 8, we have already noticed that by directing the remaining two members to proceed with the work & by notifying their awards as the awards of the Tribunal the Govt. had filled up the vacancy u/S. 8. In our opinion this position cannot be supported on the admitted facts. As regards filling up of a vacancy u/S. 8, we have already noticed that by directing the remaining two members to proceed with the work & by notifying their awards as the awards of the Tribunal the Govt. must be considered to have intended not to fill up the vacancy. Again the later notfin. published in June 1950 does nor even state that Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar was appointed a member of the Tribunal "in any vacancy." The word used there is "resumed," suggesting thereby that he had gone out for the time being but had started the work again. Under the circumstances & in the absence of any other evidence, we are unable to consider the act of Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar sitting along with the two members from & after 20-9-1950 as an appointment by the Govt. in the vacancy created by his appointment to the Boundary Tribunal in November 1949. 12. At one stage it was suggested that the members of the Tribunal could delegate their work to a few members only & the award can be supported in that way. Apart from the question what work could be so delegated, it was ascertained that the Rule permitting delegation was first published on 3-12-1949 & as Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar had gone to his work on the Boundary Tribunal on 23rd November, no delegation in that manner was possible. Moreover, the statement of facts nor the award of the three persons suggests that there was any delegation of work by the Tribunal in the matter of the general issues to some members only. Nor was any report made to or considered by the full Tribunal as required by the Rule. 13. The next question to be considered is the effect of Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar sitting with the two members of the Tribunal after 20-2-1950. The record shows that the two members considered most of the general issues raised in respect of the banks at many meetings. The nature & volume of the work done by them during this interval has been summarised in the earlier part of the judgment. It is not contended that on Mr. The record shows that the two members considered most of the general issues raised in respect of the banks at many meetings. The nature & volume of the work done by them during this interval has been summarised in the earlier part of the judgment. It is not contended that on Mr. Chandrsekhara Aiyar commencing to sit again with the other two members on & from the 20th February what had happened in his absence was re-done or re-heard. Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar along with the other two members continued to work from the point work had proceeded upto 19-2-1950 & the award which is put before us is signed by all the three of them, i., e., on the footing that all the three of them were members of the tribunal. It was suggested that Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar should be treated as having remained throughout a member of the Tribunal of three & that he resumed work after a temporary absence between November 1949 & February 1950. In our opinion, this "Reference your telegram twenty eight stop Govt. advised that rule twelve is inconsistent with section eight stop rule twelve being deleted through notfn. stop Govt. advised Tribunal can continue proceedings with remaining two members stop no formula order or notfn. necessary stop Govt. may fill vacancy later date." 25. These two telegrams indicate that both the Chairman of the Tribunal and the Govt. took the view that in the circumstances of the case, there was a vacancy within the terms of S. 8, that under that section it was open to the Govt. either to make an appointment to fill the vacancy or not to make an appointment, and that the proceedings before the Tribunal could continue even if the vacancy was not filled. This is quite clear from the concluding words (which I have underlined (here italicised)) of the telegram sent by the Govt. to the Chairman of the Tribunal. In my judgment, the view taken by the Chairman of the Tribunal and the Govt. was perfectly correct. The question involved here is twofold, namely, (1) whether S. 8 applies to a temporary vacancy; and (2) whether, in case the Govt. decides not to fill such a vacancy, the proceedings can continue before the Chairman and the remaining member. I have already dealt with the first point, and the second point may also be now dealt with briefly. The question involved here is twofold, namely, (1) whether S. 8 applies to a temporary vacancy; and (2) whether, in case the Govt. decides not to fill such a vacancy, the proceedings can continue before the Chairman and the remaining member. I have already dealt with the first point, and the second point may also be now dealt with briefly. In substance, what S. 8 provides is that it the Chairman goes out, the vacancy must be filled, but, if a member goes out, the Govt. may or may not fill the vacancy. It seems to me to follow from this by necessary implication, that if there is a member's vacancy and the Govt. decides not to fill it, the Tribunal will not become an imperfectly constituted Tribunal. In other words, the proceedings can be continued before the Tribunal in spite of the vacancy. The argument pot forward before us on behalf on the applts was that in the event of a member's vacancy, either the Govt. should make an appointment at once or the work of the Tribunal should be suspended until an appointment is made. These inferences however do not appear to me to ho warranted by the words of the section, firstly because if the section says that the Govt. may or may not appoint a new member, how can we say that the Govt. must appoint him, and secondly because there is nothing in the section to show that the work of the Tribunal should remain suspended indefinitely in the situation with which we have to deal. A reference to the corresponding Acts in England and America will show that suspension of work is generally ruled out in cases of industrial disputes since they need expeditious settlement (See S. 3(b) National Labour Relations Act of America and S. 3, Industrial Courts Act 1919, of England.) The scheme of our Industrial Disputes Act appears to me to be the same, and I think that it will be entirely foreign to that scheme to suggest that the proceedings of the Tribunal should remain suspended indefinitely. The Principle that the proceedings may continue in spite of there being a vacancy in number, is expressly laid down in Ss. The Principle that the proceedings may continue in spite of there being a vacancy in number, is expressly laid down in Ss. 5 and 6 of the Act which govern Boards of Conciliation and Courts of Enquiry, and is, in my opinion, recognized by necessary implication in S. 3 with reference to proceedings before an Industrial Tribunal. It was strenuously argued before us that if the intention of the Legislature had been that the proceedings before the Tribunal should continue in spite of a vacancy, an express provision would have been made in S. 3 in the same terms as it has been made in Ss. 5 & 6. This argument however, will not bear close examination. Sections 5 and 6 have been reproduced from the Trade Disputes Act, 1929, without any verbal change whatsoever, and it is quite understandable that a provision dealing with the subject of a prescribed quorum should expressly state what would be the effect of the absence of the Chairman or a member when the quorum is complete. Section 8, on the other hand, has not been borrowed from the old Act, but is a completely new section in which its draftsman has used his own language and proceeded on the footing that if it was possible to convey the meaning intended to be conveyed in fewer words, there was no necessity, for reproducing the entire phraseology used in Ss. 5 and 6. Besides, in the context in which the provision occurs, there is no room for surmising that the intention of the framer of the section might have been to suspend the work of the Tribunal. The words "the proceedings shall be continued before the Board, Court or Tribunal so reconstituted", obviously refer to a situation which arises when a new Chairman or a new member is appointed, but they also show that the framer of the section must have assumed that the proceedings before the Tribunal shall continue when there is a vacancy in number and the Government decides not to fill it. 26. The position we have now arrived at is this. There was a vacancy of an indefinite duration and the Govt. decided, as it was competent for it to decide, not to fill it for the time being but to let the Tribunal continue the work. 26. The position we have now arrived at is this. There was a vacancy of an indefinite duration and the Govt. decided, as it was competent for it to decide, not to fill it for the time being but to let the Tribunal continue the work. In my judgment, in such circumstances, the proceedings before the Chairman and the remaining member cannot be said to have been without jurisdiction. 27. The further question which now arises is, "what would be the legal effect of Mr. Aiyar rejoining the Tribunal on 20-2-1950?" It is contended on behalf of the applts. that the whole award is vitiated by Mr. Aiyar being brought into the Tribunal at a late stage, and the argument is put in the following way : "The Govt. had originally appointed a Tribunal consisting of three members. Granting that a Tribunal of three members can, under S. 8 of the Act, become a Tribuna1 of 2, how can it again become a Tribunal of 3, without the Govt. acting in strict compliance with the procedure laid down in the section and without making a fresh appointment." The same argument was put a little more rhetorically by likening the proceedings before the Tribunal to a running train and enquiring whether it was permissible for one to "jump into and jump off" the train as one chose. I must confess that though I have very carefully considered this argument I have not been able to appreciate its force. In answering the argument, we have to bear in mind that the Legislature has conferred very large powers on the Govt., and the entire constitution of the Tribunal as well as the appointment of its members have been left to its discretion. Section 7 (2) provides that the Tribunal shall consist of such number of members as the appropriate Govt. thinks fit. Again, S. 8 (1) provides that the Govt. may or may not appoint a member to fill a vacancy. Under S. 9, no order of the appropriate Govt. appointing any person as a member of a Tribunal shall be called in question in any manner. Under S. 38, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act, the Govt. may make rules, and, as far as I can see, there is nothing to prevent the Govt. Under S. 9, no order of the appropriate Govt. appointing any person as a member of a Tribunal shall be called in question in any manner. Under S. 38, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act, the Govt. may make rules, and, as far as I can see, there is nothing to prevent the Govt. from making a rule fixing the minimum strength of the Tribunal for hearing any of the matters before it. Thus, in a way, the Govt. is empowered to constitute is well as reconstitute the Tribunal and though it is not expected to use the power arbitrarily or unfairly, the power is there. Therefore, looking at the substance of the matter, as opposed to mere technicalities and legal refinements, it appears home to be a sufficient answer to the question posed on behalf of the applts. to say that if the going out and coming in of Mr. Aiyar was under the orders of the Govt., the proceedings cannot be held to be invalid. 28. Apart from this general answer, I shall now try to deal with the question a little more closely. As I have already pointed out, under S. 8, the Govt. is empowered not to fill a member's vacancy it all. Now, there appear to me at least two obvious reasons, which may induce the Govt. not to fill the vacancy, namely, (1) because it considers that the Chairman and the remaining member or members are sufficient to carry on the work of the Tribunal, and (2) because the vacancy being a temporary one, it considers it unnecessary to introduce a new member and prefers to await the return of the old member. It seems to me that it was the latter alternative that commended itself to the Govt. in the present case. Here, the vacancy being a temporary one, Mr. Aiyar had not ceased to be a member of the Tribunal, and could, therefore, rejoin it as soon as he was free from the duties of his new office. In such an event, it was not necessary for the Govt. to make any order reappointing him to the Tribunal. He was still a member of the Tribunal and resumed his duties as such under the orders of the Govt. In such an event, it was not necessary for the Govt. to make any order reappointing him to the Tribunal. He was still a member of the Tribunal and resumed his duties as such under the orders of the Govt. It will, therefore, be entirely wrong to describe him its an intermeddler and to argue that the proceeding was vitiated by his return to the Tribunal. There is indeed no difficulty in the present case in holding that Mr. Aiyar, joined the Tribunal under the orders of the Govt., and we find that the Govt., ultimately declared the award, to which he was a party, to be binding under S. 15 of the Act. He was allowed to resume his duties as member of the Tribunal, and drew his salary as such from 20-2-1950, till the termination of the proceedings. Such being the facts, it would be far too abrupt a conclusion to hold that the entire proceedings are void & the award is bad. One of the arguments which has been advanced before us against the validity of the award is that Mr. Aiyar, though he did not participate in the proceedings which took place in his absence, was at least theoretically able to influence the decision of the remaining members who had participated in them. But I do not see any basis far this argument in law, unless we allow our minds to be influnced by any preconceived notions of strict judicial procedure followed in a regular Ct. of law. A persual of S. 8 (21 will show that the Act does not contemplate a de novo hearing in those cases where a new member is appointed by the Govt. in the place of a member whose services had ceased to be available. The new member may join at any stage of the proceedings, & no party will be heard to say that & member who has not taken part in the earlier proceedings is able to influence the views of those who had participated in their. How then can such an objection be raised in the case of Mt. Aiyar, who was familiar with the proceedings & had taken part in them in the earlier stages. 29. When, we therefore examine the facts closely, we find that in substance nothing has happened in this case which could not have legitimately happened u/S. 8 of the Act. How then can such an objection be raised in the case of Mt. Aiyar, who was familiar with the proceedings & had taken part in them in the earlier stages. 29. When, we therefore examine the facts closely, we find that in substance nothing has happened in this case which could not have legitimately happened u/S. 8 of the Act. Even it we assume that it was necessary for the Govt. to make an appointment under Sub-s. (1), S. 8, the requirements of the provision appear to me to have been substantially fulfilled in this case, because Mr. Aiyar could not have joined the Tribunal without giving notice to the Govt. & without obtaining its orders. There can be no doubt that the Govt. permitted Mr. Aiyar to join the Tribunal, & I do not find any substantial difference between its directing a person to participate in the work of the Tribunal & appointing him as a member of that Tribunal. 30. Once, therefore, it is clearly understood that under the Act, the Govt. has been empowered not only to constitute the Tribunal but also to reconstitute it under certain circumstances, the problem which is supposed to arise from the numerical changes in the composition of the Tribunal in question should not present any difficulty. I think that the answer to that problem is to be found within the four corners of S. 8. If there is a vacancy within the terms of that section & the Govt. does not fill it, the Tribunal of 3 members will evidently become a tribunal of 2 members. But the power of filling the vacancy being vested in the Govt. the Tribunal may again become a tribunal of 3 members, as soon as the vacancy is filled. I think that the Govt. can take its own time in filling the vacancy & may allow the work of the Tribunal to go on in the meantime. Sometimes, the filling of the vacancy may be delayed, because a suitable person is not at once available, & it may also be delayed for other conceivable reasons. I do not see anything in the Act or in S. 8 to restrict the powers of the Govt. in such a manner as to compel it either to fill the vacancy at once or to let the vacancy remain unfilled for ever. I do not see anything in the Act or in S. 8 to restrict the powers of the Govt. in such a manner as to compel it either to fill the vacancy at once or to let the vacancy remain unfilled for ever. To import such a condition would be placing an undue restriction on the power of the Govt. which neither the provisions nor the scheme of the Act justify. The section, as it stands, will also in my opinion cover a case where the vacancy being a temporary one, the Govt. chooses not to fill it but awaits the return of the old incumbent. 31. It was contended that there was no formal notfn. trade at the proper time to furnish evidence of the decision arrived at by the Govt. In fact, however, a notfn. was issued by the Govt. on 20-51950, to the following effect : "After relinquishing charge of membership of the Indo Pakistan Boundary Dispute Tribunal Sri N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar resumed charge of his duties as Member of the All India Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) on 20-2-1950 (forenoon)." 32. It is argued that this ex post facto notfn. cannot legalize an illegality which had already been committed. I do not however, appreciate this argument. In the first place, there was no illegality committed; secondly, the section does not require any notfn. & thirdly, it is not correct to say that the notfn. was issued ex post facto, as the proceedings had not terminated but were still going on. The Govt. can take its own time for issuing notfn. & I am unable to hold that the Govt. did not act bona fide in making the notfn. to which I have refd. As I have already stated, the factt that Mr. Aiyar joined the Tribunal with the concurrence of the Govt. & the Govt. wanted him to continue to participate in the work of the Tribunal & paid him his salary on that basis is sufficient compliance with the requirements of the Act. How the absence of a formal order or delay in the notfn. can have such a far reaching effect on the proceedings before the Tribunal as to make the whole award void as having been made without jurisdiction, is a matter which I find considerable difficulty in appreciating. It seems to me that the objections raised on behalf of the applts. can have such a far reaching effect on the proceedings before the Tribunal as to make the whole award void as having been made without jurisdiction, is a matter which I find considerable difficulty in appreciating. It seems to me that the objections raised on behalf of the applts. are of the most unsubstantial character, & in the absence of any cogent if not compelling reason to do so, I cannot pursuade myself to hold that the work which has been accomplished by the Tribunal after nearly a year's deliberations & peregrinations all over the country at considerable cost to the public exchequer is so much money & labour thrown away. 33. In the course of the arguments, we were asked to read S.8 with Ss 7 & 16. I do not find anything in either of these sections which militates against the view which I have ventured to express, & I do not think that the provision contained in S. 16 that the report of the Tribunal shall be signed by all the members of the Tribunal, means that it should be signed even by those members who had not taken part in the proceedings. It really means that the award shall be signed by such members as have taken part in the proceedings & could have taken part in them under the Act. It should be remembered that the provision is general & applies to the awards made by the Tribunals as well as the Boards & Cts. & it should be read with the provisions contained in Ss. 5 & 6 which state that a Board or Ct having the prescribed quorum may act notwithstanding the absence of the Chairman or any of its members or any vacancy in its number. It may be that the Tribunal & the Govt. could have acted in this case with more care so as to avoid the criticism directed against the proceedings of the Tribunal, but I find no sufficient ground for holding that the proceedings were without jurisdiction. 34. Reference was made in the course of the arguments to Rr Nos. 5 & 12 framed by the Govt. u/s. 38 of the Act, which run as follows : "5. The appointment of a Board, Ct. or Tribunal together with the names of persons constituting the Board, Ct. or Tribunal shall be notified in the official Gazette. 12. 34. Reference was made in the course of the arguments to Rr Nos. 5 & 12 framed by the Govt. u/s. 38 of the Act, which run as follows : "5. The appointment of a Board, Ct. or Tribunal together with the names of persons constituting the Board, Ct. or Tribunal shall be notified in the official Gazette. 12. Where a Tribunal consists of two or more members, the Tribunal may with the consent of the parties, act notwithstanding any casual vacancy in its number & no act, proceeding or determination of the Tribunal shall be called in question or invalidated by reason of any such vacancy." 35. These rules however have in my opinion no bearing on the point in dispute. Rule 5, dealing as it does with the appointment of a Board, Ct. or Tribunal together with the names of persons constituting them, refers to a notfn. which the Govt. has to make when a Board, Ct. or Tribunal is initially constituted under the Act. This was done in this case, as will appear from the award itself. The rule has no reference to the appointments made u/s. 8 of the Act to fill vacancies. I take it that the Govt. will, as a matter of practice, issue a notfn. in regard to the appointments made u/s. 8, but the notfn. will not be under R. 5, & S. 8 itself does not expressly provide for issuing any notfn. Nor is a notfn. necessary u/s. 8 in cases where the Govt. decides not to fill a vacancy. The mere fact that the word 'reconstituted' occurs in S. 8, is not in my opinion enough to attract R. 5. Rule 12 which has in force till 5-12-1950, dealt with a casual vacancy, & provided that on the occurrence of such a vacancy, the Tribunal may act with the consent of the parties. This rule had nothing to do with the vacancy caused by the services of a Chairman or a member ceasing to be available, which is dealt with in S. 8. At the first sight, it may appear that if the consent of parties was necessary in the case of a casual vacancy for continuing the proceedings, it may also be necessary for continuing the proceedings u/s. 8 of the Act when no appointment is made. At the first sight, it may appear that if the consent of parties was necessary in the case of a casual vacancy for continuing the proceedings, it may also be necessary for continuing the proceedings u/s. 8 of the Act when no appointment is made. In my opinion, however, no such inference can be drawn from R. 12. Under that rule, the proceedings could go on without the Govt. being informed, but as to vacancies which occur u/s. 8, the matter passes into the hands of the Govt., & its action alone, one way or the other, legalizes the proceedings, & no question of consent of parties arises. On the other hand, R. 12 lends support to the resp.'s contentions in two ways. Firstly, it shows that a "vacancy" for the purposes of the proceedings before the Tribunal can be casual & need not always be a permanent one, as suggested on behalf of the applts. & secondly what is more important, that a "vacancy" does not affect the jurisdiction of the remaining members to continue the proceedings, for it is settled law that consent cannot give jurisdiction in respect of a subject-matter though it might occur a mere irregularity. It was said that R. 12 was ultra vires, but it appears to me to be unnecessary to inquire into this side issue. 36. For the reasons I have set out, I respectfully differ from the conclusion arrived at by my Lord the Chief Justice & the majority of my colleagues, & hold that the objections raised on behalf of the applts. should be overruled. 37. Patanjali Sastri J. - I agree with the reasoning & conclusion of my learned brother Fazl Ali whose judgment I have had the advantage of reading. He has said all I wished to say & has said it so well that I have nothing to add. 38. Mukharjea J.- I concur in the decision of my learned brother Fazl Ali J., that the award of the All India Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) dated 31-7-1950 could not be held to be illegal & inoperative by reason of any lack of jurisdiction in the Tribunal which made it. 38. Mukharjea J.- I concur in the decision of my learned brother Fazl Ali J., that the award of the All India Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) dated 31-7-1950 could not be held to be illegal & inoperative by reason of any lack of jurisdiction in the Tribunal which made it. However as the line of reasoning by which I have reached my conclusion is not the same as that adopted by my learned brother & as I have not been able to agree with him as regards the validity of certain earlier awards which the Tribunal purported to make in the months of January & February law, I deem it necessary & proper to express my own views on the subject-matter of controversy in these appeals as succinctly as possible in a separate judgment. 39. The only point that has been canvassed before us at this stage of the hearing of the appeals relates to the question of jurisdiction, & the substantial ground upon which the legality of the awards has been assailed by the learned counsel appearing for the several Banks is that the awards were not made by a Tribunal properly constituted & competent to adjudicate upon industrial disputes under the terms of the Industrial Disputes Act. To appreciate the arguments that have been raised by the respective parties on this point, it would be necessary to state a few facts. 40. By a notfn. dated 13-6-1949, the Central Govt. in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by S. 7, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 constituted an Industrial Tribunal consisting of three members to wit : (1) Mr. K. C. Sen, (who was appointed Chairman of the Tribunal), (2) Mr. S. P. Verma & (3) Mr. J. N. Mazumdar. By a further notfn. dated 24-8-1949, Mr. N. Chandra Sekhar Aiyar was appointed a member of the Tribunal in place of Mr. S. P. Verma, whose services ceased to be available & the Tribunal so reconstituted was designated "The All India Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes). " The Tribunal consisting of the Chairman & the two members mentioned aforesaid commenced their sittings at Bombay on 12-9-1949, & continued to sit as so constituted at Bombay & various other places since then. From the afternoon of 23-9-1949 the services of Mr. " The Tribunal consisting of the Chairman & the two members mentioned aforesaid commenced their sittings at Bombay on 12-9-1949, & continued to sit as so constituted at Bombay & various other places since then. From the afternoon of 23-9-1949 the services of Mr. N. Chandra Sekhar Aiyar were placed temporarily at the disposal of the Ministry of External Affairs, he being appointed a Member of the Indo-Pakistan Boundary Tribunal. Mr. Aiyar's work in connection with the Indo-Pakistan Boundary Tribunal ended on 27-1-1950 & a Government Notfn. shows that he was absent on leave from 28-1-1950 uptil 19th of February following & it is on 20-2-1950 that he actually resumed his duties as a Member of the Industrial Tribunal. During the entire period of his absence, there were various sittings of the Industrial Tribunal in which the two remaining Members took part & a number of awards were also made & signed by these two members adjudicating upon several items of dispute concerning certain Banks. It may be mentioned here that in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 38, Industrial Disputes Act, certain rules were framed by the Central Govt. which came into force on 3-12-l949 & under which the Tribunal, as constituted by the notfn. of 13-6-1949, was authorised to entrust such cases or matters refd. to it, as it deemed fit, to one or more members for enquiry & report. In case of such entrustment, the report of the enquiring member was to be placed before the Chairman of the Tribunal & the Tribunal after considering the report & making such further enquiry as it deemed proper could deliver the award. Purporting to act in pursuance of these rules, a large number of matters pending before the Tribunal were divided amongst the Members for enquiry & report & the Members of the Tribunal did sit separately at different places from 3- 12-1949. 41. After Mr. Aiyar joined the Tribunal, the proceedings continued as before. The hearing of the general issues, which began at Bombay, was concluded on 3-4-1950. The Tribunal made & signed the main award on 31-7-1950 which was published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) on 19-8-1950. 42. The point that has been pressed for our consideration on behalf of the applts. Banks is that on the services of Mr. The hearing of the general issues, which began at Bombay, was concluded on 3-4-1950. The Tribunal made & signed the main award on 31-7-1950 which was published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) on 19-8-1950. 42. The point that has been pressed for our consideration on behalf of the applts. Banks is that on the services of Mr. Aiyar having ceased to be available by reason of his being appointed a Member of the Indo-Pakistan Boundary Tribunal, the remaining two Members could not, in law, constitute an Industrial Tribunal without its being reconstituted as such in the manner contemplated by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The proceedings after 23-11-1949 became, therefore, void & inoperative & the subsequent rejoining of the Tribunal by Mr. Aiyar was of no avail; as a vacancy having once occurred, a fresh appointment of a Member & a fresh constitution of the Tribunal were imperative in law. We have been asked to declare the award made on 31-7-1950 as well as the earlier awards void & inoperative on these grounds. 43. These contentions have been sought to be repelled on behalf of the resps. employees as well as by the learned Attorney General who appeared for the Central Govt. as intervener, on a variety of grounds & though the grounds are not quite uniform or consistent, they have all been invoked in support of the position that even in the absence of Mr. Aiyar it was quite competent to the two other Members to continue to function legally as a Tribunal under the provisions & the general scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There was nothing irregular, it is said, in Mr. Aiyar's subsequently taking part in the Tribunal and signing the award on 31-7-1949. I will notice these arguments in detail as I proceed with my judgment. 44. It will be convenient first of all to advert to such of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as have a bearing on the questions raised in this case. The object of the Industrial Disputes Act, as set out in the preamble is "to make provisions for investigation & settlement of industrial disputes & for certain other purposes hereinafter appearing.'' There are three classes of authorities provided for by the Act which are entrusted with the powers & duties, of investigation & settlement of industrial disputes. The object of the Industrial Disputes Act, as set out in the preamble is "to make provisions for investigation & settlement of industrial disputes & for certain other purposes hereinafter appearing.'' There are three classes of authorities provided for by the Act which are entrusted with the powers & duties, of investigation & settlement of industrial disputes. First of all, there are Conciliation Officers or Boards of Conciliation, whose duties mainly are to induce the parties to come to a fair & amicable settlement of the disputes amongst themselves. Secondly, there are Cts. of Enquiry & though they are described as Cts., their duties end with investigation into the matters refd. to them & submitting reports thereon to the appropriate Govt. Lastly, there are Industrial Tribunals composed of independent persons who either are or had been Judges of the H. C. or D. Js., or are qualified for appointment as H. C. Judges. 45. Sub-s. (2), S. 5 provides for the constitution of a Board of Conciliation. A Board of Conciliation shall consist of a Chairman & two or four other members as the appropriate Govt. thinks fit, & sub-s. (3) provides that the Chairman shall be an independent person, while the members shall be persons appointed in equal numbers by the parties to the dispute. Sub-s. (4) makes an important provision, namely, that a Board can function despite the absence of the Chairman or any of the Members if it has the prescribed quorum as laid down in the rules, provided however that if the Govt. notifies the Board that the services of the Chairman or of any other Member have ceased to be available, the Board shall not act unless a new Chairman or Member, as the case may be, has been appointed. 46. S. 6 of the Act relates to Cts. of Enquiry & such Ct. may consist of one independent person or such number of independent persons as the appropriate Govt. may think fit. Where a Ct. of Enquiry consists of two or more members, one of them has got to be appointed as a Chairman. The Ct. like the Board of Conciliation can function in the absence of the Chairman or any of its members or in the case of any vacancy in its number, provided it has the prescribed quorum; but it cannot function if the appropriate Govt. The Ct. like the Board of Conciliation can function in the absence of the Chairman or any of its members or in the case of any vacancy in its number, provided it has the prescribed quorum; but it cannot function if the appropriate Govt. notifies it that the services of the Chairman have ceased to be available so long as a new Chairman is not appointed. There is no provision in S. 6 relating to notfn. by Govt. in case the services of a member of a Ct. ceases to be available as there is in the case of a member of the Conciliation Board u/s. 5. 47. S. 7 deals with Industrial Tribunals. Sub-s. (1) lays down that the appropriate Govt. may constitute one or more Industrial Tribunals for the adjudication of industrial disputes in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Sub-s. (2) provides that a Tribunal shall consist of such number of members as the appropriate Govt. thinks fit. Where the Tribunal consists of two or more members, one of them shall be appointed a Chairman. There is no provision in S. 7 similar to that appearing in Ss. 5 & 6 empowering a Tribunal to continue its proceedings in the absence of the Chairman or any of its members, provided there is a requisite quorum; in fact, no quorum has been prescribed in the rules in regard to an Industrial Tribunal at all. It is clear, therefore, from the provision of S. 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act refd. to above -& this position has not been disputed by Mr. De who appeared for the employees of some of the Banks-that if a Tribunal has been constituted as consisting of three members as in the present case, then subject to any exception that may be created by any other provision of the Act all the three members of the Tribunal must act together. 48. On behalf of the resps. very great stress has been laid upon S. 8 of the Industrial Disputes Act, & it is contended that in the circumstances which have happened in the present case, the provision of S. 8 would furnish a clear authority to the two remaining members to continue as a legally constituted Tribunal during the period that the services of Mr. very great stress has been laid upon S. 8 of the Industrial Disputes Act, & it is contended that in the circumstances which have happened in the present case, the provision of S. 8 would furnish a clear authority to the two remaining members to continue as a legally constituted Tribunal during the period that the services of Mr. Aiyar ceased to be available, even though there was neither a fresh appointment in his place nor a fresh constitution of the Tribunal. S. 8 is in the following terms: "(1) If the services of the Chairman of a Board or of the Chairman or other member of a Ct. or Tribunal cease to be available at any time, the appropriate Govt. shall, in the case of a Chairman, & may in the case of any other member, appoint another independent person to fill the vacancy, & the proceedings shall be continued before the Board, Ct. or Tribunal so reconstituted; (2) Where a Ct. or Tribunal consists of one person only & his services cease to be available, the appropriate Govt. shall appoint another independent person in his place & the proceedings shall be continued before the person so appointed. (3) Where the services of any member of a Board other than the Chairman have ceased to be available, the appropriate Govt. shall appoint in the manner specified in sub-s. (3), S. 5 another person to take his place, & the proceedings shall be continued before the Board so reconstituted." 49. The Section purports to provide for filling up vacancies. Sub- s. (2) is not material for our present purpose. Taking sub-Ss. (1) & (3) together we find that if the services of the Chairmen of a Board, a Ct. or a Tribunal cease to be available at any time, it is incumbent upon the appropriate Govt. in each case to fill the vacancy by the appointment of another independent person as Chairman & the proceedings shall be continued before the authorities so reconstituted & they would not have to be commenced de novo. In case the services of a member of either a Ct. or a Tribunal cease to be available, it is discretionary with the appropriate Govt. to fill the vacancy or not as it chooses. In case the services of a member of either a Ct. or a Tribunal cease to be available, it is discretionary with the appropriate Govt. to fill the vacancy or not as it chooses. If it chooses to appoint a new member in place of the old, the same provision will apply as in the case of appointment of a new Chairman. The section does not say at least in express term, as to what would happen if the Govt. does not think it proper to appoint a new member so far as a Board of Conciliation is concerned, a different provision is made even when the services of a member cease to be available. In such a case reappointment has got to be made as provided for in sub-s. (3), S. 5 & the reasons are obvious; because the essential thing in a Board of Conciliation is the equal representation of both parties to the dispute & the parties would be unequally represented if the vacancy of a member is not filled up. 50. In the present case one of the members of the Tribunal, namely, Mr. N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar was admittedly absent for a period of about three months & as he was appointed to do duties in another capacity, his services could not possibly be available during the period that he was engaged elsewhere. This fact, it appears, was brought to the notice of the appropriate Govt. by the other two members, but the Govt. decided not to make any new appointment in his place. The question is, what exactly became the legal position of the other two members? Could they function as a Tribunal in the absence of the third member & without the Govt. reconstituting the Tribunal as a Tribunal of two? The contention of the resps. is that as S. 8 of the Industrial Disputes Act gives an option to the appropriate Govt. to fill the vacancy or not, as it choos