ORDER 1. As the questions involved in both these writ petitions are common and have a bearing on each other, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the pleadings and documents available in W.P. No. 3624/1996 are being referred to in this order. 3. Petitioner/Lok Shikshan Sansthan, Sirmour in W.P. No. 3624/1996, is a registered society and has established a Degree College in Sirmour. The College is functioning since 1965 and was affiliated with the Sagar University, Sagar. 4. Subsequently, after formation of Awadhesh Pratap University in District-Rewa, the college is affiliated to the said University. The institute is an aided institute, receiving grants through the Uchha Shiksha Anudan Ayog, Madhya Pradesh. Subsequently, after winding up of the Ayog in the year 1981, grant is given by the State Government after due approval and concurrence of the Uchha Shiksha Anudan Ayog, permission was granted to the college to start Post Graduate Classes i.e. M.A. in Sociology, however, while granting permission, a condition was stipulated that no grant-in-aid shall be paid to the institute for this Course. It seems that Respondent No. 3 Ajaib Singh was permitted to join as Assistant Professor in Sociology on 27.7.1982 on adhoc basis and according to the management of the Institute, the adhoc appointment was to be subject to sanction of the post and approval for grant in aid. The appointment was made by the Governing Body and it was after recommendation of the duly constituted Selection Committee. However, as recommendation of the selection committee was not approved, it is stated that the adhoc and temporary arrangement continued on temporary basis. It is stated that late Shri Ajaib Singh was not given any regular appointment. In June, 1987, it is alleged that Respondent No. 3 remained unauthorizedly absent for a very long period of time and even after various notices and letters were issued vide Annexure-P5 and P6, it is stated that Respondent No.3 did not join services, instead, he moved application to the Vice Chancellor of Awadhesh Pratap Singh University, Rewa claiming salary on the ground that he is not permitted to work. It seems that in view of the above, certain dispute arose between the Institute and Respondent No. 3 Shri Ajaib Singh with regard to working or otherwise and finally in accordance with Statute No. 28 of the College Code and in accordance with provisions of Clause 38 thereof, a statutory tribunal was constituted consisting of a Nominee of Kulpati Respondent No. 2, a nominee of Shri Ajaib Singh Respondent No. 3 i.e. one Umesh Singh and a nominee of the Governing Body of the Institute i.e. one Shri Janardan Prasad Mishra. The tribunal was to adjudicate the dispute. The tribunal by an order dated 13.5.1996 decided certain issues. It is the case of the petitioners in W.P. No. 3624/1996 that the question referred to the tribunal was only with regard to payment of salary. The tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction and in its award Annexure-P1 dated 13.5.1996, issued instructions and decided various other questions which were not the subject matter before the Tribunal. Challenging the aforesaid award, this writ petition has been filed by the Institute i.e. W.P. No. 3624/1996. 5. The other case W.P. No. 3221/1996 was originally filed by Shri AjaibSingh but after his death, his legal heirs are brought on record and the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the award dated 13.5.1996 (Annexure-P1) is not being implemented. Even though the various grounds are raised in both these petitions, in support of the rival contentions made by each of the petitioners, during the course of hearing, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the tribunal has been constituted under Clause-38 of the College Code and it consisted of three members namely, Shri Dr. S.S. Singh Respondent No. 2, the nominee of the Awadhesh Pratap Singh University, Shri Umesh Singh, the nominee of Shri Ajaib Singh Respondent No. 3 and Shri Janardan Prasad Mishra, the nominee of the Governing Body of the Institute. The proceedings of the tribunal and the award passed indicated that the award was passed only by two of the members namely Dr. S.S. Singh and Shri Umesh Singh, the third member Shri Janardan Pasad Mishra, the nominee of the Governing Body of the institute is not the party in the award passed vide Annexure-P1 dated 13.5.1996, in fact the proceedings of the tribunal was held in his absence. 6. S.S. Singh and Shri Umesh Singh, the third member Shri Janardan Pasad Mishra, the nominee of the Governing Body of the institute is not the party in the award passed vide Annexure-P1 dated 13.5.1996, in fact the proceedings of the tribunal was held in his absence. 6. Challenge to the award/ order of the tribunal is made in W.P. No. 3624/1996 on the ground that the award was passed by two of the members and in the absence of the third member participating in the proceedings, the order impugned is illegal. Apart from the various other grounds raised in this writ petition, as the aforesaid question goes to the root of the matter, Shri Swapnil Ganguly learned counsel who appears for legal heirs of Shri Ajaib Singh/Respondent No. 3 was directed to give his say in the matter and to indicate as to how, an award passed by only two of the members consisting of three members of the tribunal can be said to be a legal award. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel inviting my attention to various documents available on record, tried to emphasize that as per the award, the tribunal has to be constituted under Clause-38 of the College Code, it is stated that when the tribunal was not properly functioning and there was some delay in conclusion of the proceedings of the tribunal, petitioners Lok Shikshan Sansthan Sirmour filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. No. 477/1996. The grievance in that case was that the tribunal constituted under Clause-38 of Statute No. 28 of the College Code is not conducting proceedings properly and is not deciding the matter in accordance with law. 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid grievance, on 11.3.1996, a bench of this Court decided the writ petition W.P. No. 477/1996 and issued the following directions: The petition is disposed of with a direction to the Respondent No. 3 to allow the parties to place their case and documents an drecord the day to day proceedings and decide the dispute in accordance with law with in a period of two months from the date of production/communication of this order. Certified copy be given on payment of usual charges. 8. Certified copy be given on payment of usual charges. 8. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel thereafter invites my attention to the proceedings of the tribunal held on 13.5.1996 and points out that Shri Janardan Prasad Mishra, the third member of the tribunal, who was the nominee of Ms. Lok Shikshan Sansthan Sirmour had deliberately remained absent in the proceedings of the tribunal and the management of the Institute itself was not cooperating in the proceedings of the tribunal. The tribunal consisted of three members and in the absence of one member, the majority passed the award, it is emphasized by Shri Swapnil Ganguly that this was necessary in view of the directions issued by this Court on 11.3.1996 in W.P. No. 477/1996, directing the tribunal to decide the dispute within two months and accordingly Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel submits that in view of the attitude of the Institute namely petitioner in W.P. No. 3624/1996 and its representative in not permitting the tribunal to function. The two members, who constituted the majority have a right to submit the order and, therefore, the petition filed by the Institute be dismissed, as the award passed be implemented. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the records and after considering the rival contentions, the moot question which warrants consideration of this Court is as to whether the order/award passed by the tribunal as contained in Annexure-P1 dated 13.5.1996 can be said to be an award passed in accordance with law and given effect to. Admittedly, the tribunal is constituted under Clause-38 of the College Code. The College Code is formulated under Statute No. 28 and the said clause i.e. Clause-38 reads as under: 38. Any dispute arising out of the contract of service between the Governing Body of the College and any of its teachers shall at the request of the teacher or the Governing Body be referred by Kulpatito a Tribunal consisting of one nominee of the Kulpatio their than a member of the Executive Council, who shall be the Chairman and one nominee each of the teacher and the Governing Body and the decision of the Tribunal shall befinal. 10. 10. It is clear from the aforesaid provision that the tribunal is a Body consisting of three members and there is nothing in this provision or any other rule, regulation or provision, which indicates that in the absence of any of the member, the tribunal can decide the dispute by majority of the members. The Tribunal is consisted of three members and, therefore, if a decision is taken by two of the members, the entire proceedings would be vitiated. Under the statutory provision, all the three members constitute in the tribunal and in the absence of one or more members, decision of the tribunal will be not in accordance with law. If the tribunal is consisted of three members then the members have to function in accordance with statute which creates it, if there is any deviation from the statutory provision then the proceedings of the tribunal will not be in accordance with law and if any decision is taken and direction issued by the said authority, the same is nothing but an illegal and void action which cannot be permissible. In the present case, the tribunal as indicated hereinabove, consisted of three members and as the award/ order in question Annexure-P1 dated 13.5.1996 is passed only by two of the members. That being so, the award/ order is passed by an illegal authority and on that count alone the award is liable to be quashed. 11. Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel has tried to emphasize that because the representatives of the petitioner in W.P. No. 3624/1996 was not cooperating and was trying to frustrate the proceedings of the tribunal, the petitioners in the said writ petition has no locus-standi to challenge the award as they are responsible for the manner in which the tribunal concerned has passed the award. The contention of Shri Swapnil Ganguly may be correct only for the limited purpose of demonstrating the conduct of the Institute and its members but on that count, an award passed by the said authority cannot be upheld by this Court. Once the law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, anything done contrary there to, cannot be given effect to and if it is found that the tribunal has functioned in the manner which is not permissible under law, the contention of the Shri Swapnil Ganguly cannot be accepted for upholding the award. 12. Once the law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, anything done contrary there to, cannot be given effect to and if it is found that the tribunal has functioned in the manner which is not permissible under law, the contention of the Shri Swapnil Ganguly cannot be accepted for upholding the award. 12. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that as the award in question has been passed in an illegal manner by only two members of the tribunal and as the constitution of the tribunal by two members itself is contrary to Clause-38 of the College Code, the same is illegal. The award/order Annexure-P1 dated 13.5.1996 has to be quashed and cannot be given effect to. However, as the institute in question i.e. the petitioner in W.P. No. 3624/1996 and their representatives are responsible for the situation that has been created and as Shri Ajaib Singh and his legal heirs are fighting in the matter since 1986, it is not a fit case where the matter should be remanded for constitution of the tribunal again for deciding the dispute involved in the matter. Petitioners in W.P. No. 3624/1996 have not cooperated in the proceedings of the tribunal. On such consideration, the matter is remanded back to the Vice Chancellor of the Awadhesh Pratap Singh University Rewa and Vice Chancellor is directed to take action with regard to dispute now subsists in the matter in accordance with law. 13. On filing of a certified copy of this order before the Vice-Chancellor Awadhesh Pratap Singh University Rewa, the Vice Chancellor shall constitute a two members' committee of his own choice and the said committee shall decide the question as is agitated in both these writ petitions after hearing the legal heirs of late Shri Ajaib Singh and the representatives of the Institute in question and after doing so, the committee shall report to the Vice Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor shall get the decision of the committee implemented as per law. 14. 14. The parties are free to submit before the committee constituted by the Vice Chancellor, the recommendations or the observations made by the members of the tribunal, who have passed the order/ award vide Annexure-P1 dated 13.5.1996 and to place reliance on the same in support of their contentions and it would be for the committee constituted by the Vice Chancellor to take a decision on the same in accordance with law. 15. Even though, the Institute in question has stated that Shri Janardan Prasad Mishra was not informed about the proceedings of the tribunal and could not appear because of lack of proper intimation, the same will not make any difference now in the merits of the matter as the award was per-se illegal. 16. With the aforesaid, both the petitions are allowed and disposed of. Certified Copy as per rules.