| 4 | Provides for the establishment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and State Administrative Tribunals. | These tribunals decide certain disputes about public employment. The Central Government establishes CAT, while a State Administrative Tribunal may be established following a request from the State Government. | S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987) |
| 5 | Deals with the composition of tribunals and their benches. | The section explains how tribunals are organised and how their members hear cases. A bench is a group of tribunal members who decide cases. | L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) |
| 6 | Sets out the qualifications required for appointment as the Chairman and other members of a tribunal. | The section lays down the eligibility requirements for tribunal appointments. These requirements help ensure that appointed members have suitable legal or administrative experience. | Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association (2010) |
| 14 | Defines the jurisdiction (legal power to hear and decide cases) of the Central Administrative Tribunal. | CAT deals mainly with recruitment and service-related disputes involving people appointed to Union Government services and other covered public organisations. | S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987) |
| 15 | Defines the jurisdiction of State Administrative Tribunals. | A State Administrative Tribunal can decide covered employment disputes involving State Government services and other authorities within its legal scope. Its powers do not extend to matters assigned to CAT. | L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) |
| 17 | Gives tribunals the power to punish for contempt of themselves. | Contempt means conduct that disobeys or seriously interferes with the authority of a tribunal. This power helps tribunals ensure that their proceedings are respected. | — |
| 19 | Allows an affected person to apply to a tribunal for relief in a matter within its jurisdiction. | A person who believes that a covered government employment decision has harmed them can file an application before the tribunal. The application must follow the prescribed procedure. | S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987) |
| 20 | Generally requires a person to use available departmental remedies before approaching a tribunal. | A person should normally first use the appeal or review process available within the department. The section provides an exception where the tribunal is satisfied that using those remedies is not necessary. | — |
| 21 | Sets time limits for filing applications before tribunals. | An application must generally be filed within one year of the relevant final order or decision. Special rules apply where a departmental appeal or representation has been made and no final order is issued. | — |
| 22 | Sets out the procedure and powers of tribunals. | Tribunals are not required to follow every technical rule used by ordinary civil courts. They must follow the principles of natural justice (fair treatment and a fair hearing) and their prescribed procedure. | L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) |
| 23 | Allows an applicant to take help from a legal practitioner and provides for government representation. | A person applying to a tribunal may be represented by a lawyer, subject to the Act's rules. The Government may appoint an officer to present its side of the case. | — |
| 24 | Sets conditions for making interim orders (temporary orders while a case is pending). | A tribunal may make a temporary order only after following the safeguards required by this section. In urgent cases, it must follow the special procedure for an order made without first hearing the other side. | — |
| 25 | Allows the Chairman to transfer cases from one bench to another. | The Chairman may transfer a case between benches as permitted by the Act. This helps manage cases and distribute work between benches. | — |
| 26 | Provides for decisions by majority where the members hearing a case disagree. | If the members of a bench do not agree, the decision is made according to the majority procedure set out in the section. This provides a way to resolve disagreement between members. | — |
| 27 | Provides for the transfer of certain pending cases to the appropriate tribunal. | When a tribunal is established, certain cases already pending before courts or other authorities may be transferred to it, subject to the conditions in the section. | S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987) |
| 28 | Excludes the jurisdiction of other courts over matters assigned to tribunals, subject to constitutional limits. | The section originally sought to prevent ordinary courts from deciding matters given to tribunals. In L. Chandra Kumar, the Supreme Court held that High Courts' powers of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 and the Supreme Court's power under Article 32 cannot be removed. | L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) |
| 29 | Provides for the transfer of certain pending cases involving matters within tribunal jurisdiction. | The section deals with cases pending when the tribunal system is introduced. It supports the movement of covered disputes to the tribunal, subject to the Act's requirements. | S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987) |