Administrative Tribunal body set-up to exercise jurisdiction in respect of matters to, or arising out of the republic, or of any statutory public authority. The emergence of administrative tribunals is associated with the concept and practice of administrative adjudication of disputes between the executive organ of the state and those of the bureaucracy on the one hand, and citizens and non-government entities on the other. British development of administrative tribunals can be traced back to the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. The jurisdiction of these tribunals is generally focused on specific subjects such as social security, registration of childrens homes, local taxation etc. In the United States also, specialised commissions exist to adjudicate disputes. Examples are the Inter-state Commerce Commission, Federal Trade Commission etc. The strongest form of administrative tribunals exists in France, known as the Council of State System. Thus administrative tribunals exist in different names in different countries.

apart from the court of law,which are the regular means of resolving conventional dispute, there ara other means of settling contentions of special nature.Administrative tribunal is one of such a means established by law and developed in a

picemeal manner with the advent welfere stats. For, with the increasing growth of welfare stats , more and more hitherto unregulated areas started to be regulated under various enactment passed from time time.These enactments became potential sources of dispute, which the existing courts were not in a position to deal with properly because of the increased number of disputes of special nature. Accordingly, it was keenly felt that a separate forum, Administrative Tribunal, to be established to deal with such a conflict. In fact, its development proliferation are essentially a twentieth century phenomenon.


“Tribunals” means those bodies ogf men who are appointed

to decide controverses arising certain speciasl laws.

In the same vein, the Supreme Court  of Bangladesh observe in the case of Bangladesh Vs. Dhirendra Nath Sarker thus:

“tribunals”mean those bodies of mean who are appointed to decide controverses arising under certain special Laws between perties.

A particular authority is required to fulfill the following essential conditions:

  1. It is established by particular statute,
  2. It is established as an adjudicating body clothed with a part of the judicial function of the state , and
  3. It is empowered to resolve disputes of special nature arising between parties under cetrtain special Laws.

The reasons for the development of an Administrative Tribunal may be examined under the head of

(1) Expert knowladge ,

(2) policy- oriented decesion,

(3) Cheapness,

(4) Eccessibility,

(5) Informality

(6) Flexibility

(7) privacy, and

(8) Speedy justice.

Explanation are given bellow:


Exppert knowladge:


Many of the important questions that have to be decide under modern special legistation call for an expert  knowladge of matters. Administrative Tribunals is, in actual practice, an adjudicating forum were specially qualified people make decisions as experts of particular subject. Generally it is consider of a chair persons to other non legally qualified people, who have some particular experties in the particular filed over which the Adminiostraive Tribunal has jurisdiction.For example, the labour court establish in Bangladesh to settle industrial disputes composed of alegally qualified chairman, and on representative from the workmen and one person to represent the viwes of the employers. The experts,m therfore, sit on the decision-making board, and are not simply called to give expert evidens, as old be the case in an ordinary Court.


Policy-oriented decision:

Ordinary courts do not decide disputes on the basic of the policy. They look at the strict wording of the legislation.As such, they can not properly resolve many of the disputes of modern times, which require policy-oriented decisions.But, Administrative Tribunals is the only form, which can meet this requirement, as it does not look at the strict wording of the legislation. Rather, it examines the spirit and policy of the legislation so as to ensure that its decisions would give effect to that policy.




Ordinary civil Courts in certain cases charge fees: Tribunals do not. For example, rent tribunals and national insurance Tribunals in the United Kingdom emphasize lack of expense. People appearing before this Tribunals can be represented by persons other then lawers , and this also helps reduce expences. Further , a person who loses an action in the Ttribunal does not have to pay the cost of the other side i.e. opposite party.





A common characteristic of Administrative Tribunals compare it with ordinary Courts is that the legal profession does not have a monopoly of the rigght of represent those appearing before the Aministrative Tribunals. This fact alone makes the Administrative Tribunals more accessibile to the public then the ordinary courts, since a trade union official, and accountant, a doctor, a social worker or a friend may often present and indivuiduals case effectively.




In actual practice, Administrative Tribunal are as informal as is cosistent with an orderly conduct of their affairs. And attend is usually made to created and atmosphere in which people who appeare in Tribunal will not feel ill or nervous. Further, Administrative Tribunals are not bound by such complex rules of procedure or such stringent rules of evidence as prevail in the irdianry courts. They may admit hearsay evidence; they must observe the principles of natural justice, but cross-examination is not essential.




Although every body of men that has to make decisions evolvs in course of time general working principles and government depertments tend to follow their own presidents, the new Administrative Tribunals are not hampered by the rigid doctrin of binding precident adhered to by the Courts. They thus have greater freedom to develop new brances of the Law on the basois of the modern social legislation and suitable to the needs of the welfare state.




It is the basic principle of common law that court should be open to the public, so that they may attend at any time. This, indeed, does not always suit the parties who may prefer to havre the matter heard in privat . Administrative Tribunals have this additional flexibility and advantages that they may meet in private in case of necessity.


Speedy justice:


Administrative Tribunal cases come on quickly and are usually dealt with within the day.Many Tribunals even fix the time and the day on which the will be heard. So, those concerned need only to attend for a minimum length of time and are not kept waiting.