The Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985 empowers the Central government to establish the State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) on specific request of the concerned state governments. So far (2016), the SATs have been set up in the nine states of Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Odisha, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Kerala. However, the Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pradesh Tribunals have since been abolished. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal was set up with effect from 26th August, 2010.
But subsequently Himachal Pradesh re-established the SAT and the state of Tamil Nadu has also requested now to re-establish the same.
Like the CAT, the SATs exercise original ju-risdiction in relation to recruitment and all service matters of state government employees.
The chairman and members of the SATs are appointed by the president after consultation with the governor of the state concerned.
The act also makes a provision for setting up of joint administrative tribunal (JAT) for two or more states. A JAT exercises all the jurisdiction and powers exercisable by the administrative tribunals for such states.
The chairman and members of a JAT are appointed by the president after consultation with the governors of the concerned states.
TRIBUNALS FOR OTHER MATTERS
Under Article 323 B, the Parliament and the state legislatures are authorised to provide for the establishment of tribunals for the adjudication of disputes relating to the following matters:
(b) Foreign exchange, import and export
(c) Industrial and labour
(d) Land reforms
(e) Ceiling on urban property
(f) Elections to Parliament and state legislatures
(g) Food stuffs
(h) Rent and tenancy rights
Articles 323 A and 323 B differs in the following three aspects:
1. While Article 323 A contemplates establishment of tribunals for public service matters only, Article 323 B contemplates establishment of tribunals for certain other matters (mentioned above).
2. While tribunals under Article 323 A can be established only by Parliament, tribunals under Article 323 B can be established both by Parliament and state legislatures with respect to matters falling within their legislative competence.
3. Under Article 323 A, only one tribunal for the Centre and one for each state or two or more states may be established. There is no question of hierarchy of tribunals, whereas under Article 323 B a hierarchy of tribunals may be created.
In Chandra Kumar case (1997), the Supreme Court declared those provisions of these two articles which excluded the jurisdiction of the high courts and the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Hence, the judicial remedies are now available against the orders of these tribunals.