Regulation no. 28 lays down the procedure to be followed where members a Bench of the said Tribunal are equally divided. The said Regulation is crystal clear. When it is reported to the learned President that members of Bench are equally divided, if he is not one of the members of the Bench, he may himself hear the issue on which there is a disagreement. If he is of the opinion that the case involves a substantial point of law, it is open for him to refer the question for hearing to one or more than one member of the Tribunal, including himself when he is not a member of the original Bench. Thus, there are two options open to the learned President when two members constituting a Bench differ. One of the two opinions is that, if according to him, the difference of opinion is on a substantial point of law, he can refer the question for hearing to one or more other members of the Tribunal. Therefore, in a contingency, when he is satisfied that the issue involves a substantial point of law, he can even refer the issue to a Bench of three members. As reflected from the roznama in this case, the learned President adopted the said course and accordingly, a Bench of three members presided over by the learned President himself heard the Appeal finally and closed the same for judgment.
