Bigger bench, not a superior bench: Kerala High Court clarifies

KOCHI: The Kerala High Court has held that single and division benches are equal in status and authority, and that neither is subordinate or superior to the other. All judges of the High Court enjoy equal status and power, with the Chief Justice being only the first among equals, observed a division bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji.

The observations came while the bench was considering an appeal filed by I. Bindhu, a former employee of the Thiruvananthapuram Service Co-operative Bank, challenging an order of the Kollam Labour Court extending the time available to the bank to complete fresh disciplinary proceedings against her. The Labour Court had earlier set aside the disciplinary inquiry and punishment imposed on her, allowing the bank to initiate fresh proceedings subject to a three-month deadline. It subsequently granted the bank an additional one-and-a-half months to complete the proceedings.

Bindhu challenged the extension before the High Court. In an earlier appeal, a division bench had found that the single judge had failed to consider a substantive ground raised against the Labour Court's order and requested reconsideration of that issue. The single judge subsequently dismissed the petition again, observing that division benches do not ordinarily remand matters to single benches. Bindhu then filed the present appeal.

The division bench clarified that a bench with a larger number of judges does not exercise supervisory or advisory authority over another bench. A division bench may request a single bench to reconsider an issue that was not addressed in its judgment. Such a request does not amount to a command from a superior judicial authority, as all benches are constituent parts of the same High Court.

However, when a single bench has already considered and decided an issue on its merits, the appellate bench must decide the appeal itself. It may uphold, set aside or modify the decision for valid reasons, but cannot remit the matter merely to require the single judge to reconsider a view already taken. Nor can an appellate bench assume superiority by advising or criticising the judge whose decision is under appeal.

Emphasising judicial propriety, institutional discipline and mutual respect between benches, the division bench observed that judicial strength derives from discipline, not dominance. It also underscored the importance of restraint between benches, rather than treating their relationship as purely hierarchical.

The High Court held that the Labour Court had the power to extend the time fixed in its earlier award. However, it found that the Labour Court had granted the extension without adequately examining the bank's explanation for the delay or the objections raised by Bindhu. The power to extend time had to be exercised fairly, taking into account the competing interests of both parties.

The division bench allowed the appeal, set aside both the single judge's judgment and the Labour Court's order granting the extension, and directed the Labour Court to reconsider the bank's application on its merits and pass an appropriate order within two months.