ivil Appeal No 2942 of 1989
From the Judgment and Order dated 3011
1987 of the Calcutta Central Administrative Tribunal Court in TA No 452 of 1987CO 6078 W of 1985
398 G Ramaswamy Additional Solicitor General TC Sharma and CV Subba Rao for the Appellants
Girish Chandra for the Respondents
The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER Leave granted
This appeal is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal Calcutta dated November 30 1987
The respondent was posted as Public Relations Officer in the Regional Passport Office Calcutta
He was transferred from Calcutta to Jaipur under the order dated 1431985 and he was relieved of his duty from Regional Passport Office Calcutta wef 1531985 with the direction to report for duty at Jaipur
The respondent instead of joining at Jaipur filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court and obtained interim injunction
Later on contempt proceedings were initiated by the respondent against the appellants and the High Court passed an order dated 11101985 directing the appellants to allow the respondent to join at Calcutta office and to pay all arrears of salary to him
A number of orders were passed by the High Court in respondent s favour but all those orders have been set aside by this Court in Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petitions Nos
6835 to 6837 of 1986
The respondent s writ petition pending before the Calcutta High Court was subsequently transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal Calcutta Bench
The Tribunal by its order dated November 30 1987 disposed of the writ petition
The Tribunal held that the order of transfer was not mala fide or unfair and there was no ground for interfering with the transfer order
After re cording that finding the Tribunal directed the appellants to pay all arrears of salary with allowances to the respondent with a further direction that no release order should be issued to the respondent unless all his emoluments are paid to him
After hearing learned counsel for the parties we find that the Tribunal acted in excess of its jurisdiction in issuing impugned direction
The Tribunal recorded positive findings that the transfer order was legal and valid and it was not vitiated by any unfairness or mala fide thereupon it should have dismissed the writ petition
It had no 399 jurisdiction to issue further directions regarding the release order and the payment of emoluments
The Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the respondent had already been released from the Calcutta office wef 153
198S there fore there was no question of issuing any fresh release order
We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned directions of the Tribunal
There will be no order as to costs
PSS Appeal allowed


Summary:
The Bhopal Gas Leak Tragedy that occurred at midnight of 2nd December 1984 by the escape of deadly chemical fumes from the appellant s factory was a great industrial disaster and it took an immediate toil of 2600 human lives and left tens of thousands of innocent citizens of Bhopal physically affected in various ways
As per the figures furnished by the Union of India in its amended plaint a total number of 2660 persons suffered agonising and excruciating deaths between 30000 to 40000 persons sustained serious injuries as a result of the said disaster
Legal proceedings for the recovery of compensation for the victims were initiated against the multi national compa ny first in the US Courts and later in Distt
Court at Bhopal in Suit No 113 of 1986
The present appeals concern with the order dated 4th April 1988 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby it modified the interlocutory order dated 17121987 made by the Distt
Judge and granted interim compensation of Rs250 crores
Both the Union of India and the Union Carbide Corporation have appealed to this Court against that order
The Court by its order dated the 14th February 1989 made in these appeals directed that there shall be an over all settlement of the claims in the suit for 470 million US Dollars and termination of all civil and criminal proceedings
On May 4 1989 the Court pronounced its reasons for its aforesaid order dated 14289thus The Statement of the reasons is not made with any sense of finality as to the infallibility of the decision but with an open mind to be able to appreciate any tenable and compelling legal or factual infirmities that may be brought out calling for remedy in review under Article 137 of the Constitution
132C D 129 The basic consideration motivating the conclusion of the settlement was the compelling need for urgent relief
Con siderations of excellence and niceties of legal principles were greatly over shadowed by the pressing problems of very survival for a large number of victims
133A C The instant case is one where damages are sought on behalf of the victims of a mass disaster and having regard to the complexities and the legal question involved any person with an unbiased vision would not miss the time consuming prospect for the course of the litigation in its sojourn through the various courts both in India and later in United States
This Court considered it a compelling duty
both judicial and humane to secure immediate relief to the victims
In doing so the Court did not enter upon any forbidden ground
What this Court did was in continua tion of what had already been initiated
133E F H 134A The range of choice for the Court in regard to the figures was therefore between the maximum of 426 million US Dollars offered by Shri Nariman and the minimum of 500 million US Dollars suggested by the Attorney General
134F G Having regard to all the circumstances including the prospect of delays inherent in the judicial process in India and thereafter in the matter of domestication of the decree in the United States for the purpose of execution the Court directed that 470 million US Dollars which upon immediate payment and with interest over a reasonable period pending actual distribution amongst the claimants would aggregate very nearly to 500 million US Dollars or its rupee equiva lent of approximately Rs750 crores which the Attorney General had suggested
be made the basis of the Settlement
134G H 135A B The Settlement proposals were considered on the premises that the Government had the exclusive statutory authority to represent and act on behalf of the victims and neither counsel had any reservation as to this
The order was also made on the premises that the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Registration and Processing of Claims Act 1985 was a valid law
135B C There might be different opinions on the interpretation of laws or on questions of policy or even on what may be considered wise or unwise but when one speaks of justice and truth these words mean the same thing to all men whose judgment is uncommitted
140B C The compulsions of the need for immediate relief to tens of 130 thousands of suffering victims could not wait till these questions vital though they be are resolved in due course of judicial proceedings
142D E A settlement has been recorded upon material and in circumstances which persuaded the Court that it was a just settlement
This is not to say that this Court will shut out any important material and any compelling circumstances which might impose a duty on it to exercise the powers of review
Like all other human institutions this Court is human and fallible
What appears to the Court to be just and reasonable in that particular context and setting need not necessarily appear to others in the same day
Which view is right in the ultimate analysis is to be judged by what it does to relieve the undeserved suffering of thousands of innocent citizens of this country
142F G Decisions of courts cannot be reacted or altered or determined by agitational pressures
If a decision is wrong the process of correction must be in a manner recognised by law
All of those who invoke the corrective processes in accordance with law shall be heard and the court will do what the law and the course of justice requires
The matter concerns the interests of a large number of victims of a mass disaster
The Court directed the settlement with the earnest hope that it would do hem good and bring them imme diate relief for tomorrow might be too ate for many of them
But the case equally concerns the credibility of and the public confidence in the judicial process
143B D E Those who trust this Court will not have cause for despair
143F MC Mehta vs Union of India AIR 1987 SC 1186 Theo ries of Compensation RE Goodin Oxford journal of Legal Studies 1989 p57 and Wallace Mendelson
Supreme Court Statecraft The Rule of Law and men referred to