Samir Agarwal Vs Competition Commission of India & Ors (Supreme Court of India)
Conclusion: Ola and Uber did not facilitate cartelization or anti-competitive practices between drivers as the drivers were independent individuals who acted independently of each other, therefore, section 3 of the CCI Act would not apply.
Held: Appellant sought that the Competition Commission of India [“CCI”] initiate an inquiry, under section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 [“the Act”], into the alleged anti-competitive conduct of ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd. [“Ola”], and Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd., Uber B.V. and Uber Technologies Inc. [together referred to as “Uber”], alleging that they entered into price-fixing agreements in contravention of section 3(1) read with section 3(3)(a) and engaged in resale price maintenance in contravention of section 3(1) read with section 3(4)(e) of the Act. According to appellant, Uber and Ola provide radio taxi services and essentially operate as platforms through mobile applications [“apps”] which allow riders and drivers, that is, two sides of the platform, to interact. A trip’s fare is calculated by an algorithm based on many factors. Appellant alleged that due to algorithmic pricing, neither were riders able to negotiate fares with individual drivers for rides that were booked through the apps, nor were the drivers able to offer any discounts. As per the terms and conditions agreed upon between Ola and Uber with their respective drivers, despite the fact that the drivers were independent entities who were not employees or agents of Ola or Uber, the driver was bound to accept the trip fare reflected in the app at the end of the trip, without having any discretion insofar as the same was concerned. The drivers received their share of the fare only after the deduction of a commission by Ola and Uber for the services offered to the rider. Therefore, appellant alleged that the pricing algorithm used by Ola and Uber artificially manipulated supply and demand, guaranteeing higher fares to drivers who would otherwise compete against one and another.Ola and Uber apps function akin to a trade association, facilitating the operation of a cartel. It was held that Ola and Uber were not an association of drivers, rather they act as separate entities from their respective drivers. In the present situation, a rider booked his/her ride at any given time which was accepted by an anonymous driver available in the area, and there was no opportunity for such driver to coordinate its action with other drivers. This could not be termed as a cartel activity/conduct through Ola/Uber’s platform. Ola and Uber did not facilitate cartelization or anti-competitive practices between drivers, who were independent individuals, who acted independently of each other, so as to attract the application of section 3 of the Act, as has been held by both the CCI and the NCLAT.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT
1. The present appeal is at the instance of an Informant who describes himself as an independent practitioner of the law. The Appellant/Informant, by an Information filed on 13.08.2018 [“the Information”], sought that the Competition Commission of India [“CCI”] initiate an inquiry, under section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 [“the Act”], into the alleged anti-competitive conduct of ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd. [“Ola”], and Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd., Uber B.V. and Uber Technologies Inc. [together referred to as “Uber”], alleging that they entered into price-fixing agreements in contravention of section 3(1) read with section 3(3)(a) of the Act, and engaged in resale price maintenance in contravention of section 3(1) read with section 3(4)(e) of the Act. According to the Informant, Uber and Ola provide radio taxi services and essentially operate as platforms through mobile applications [“apps”] which allow riders and drivers, that is, two sides of the platform, to interact. A trip’s fare is calculated by an algorithm based on many factors. The apps that are downloaded facilitate payment of the fare by various modes.
2. The Informant alleged that due to algorithmic pricing, neither are riders able to negotiate fares with individual drivers for rides that are booked through the apps, nor are the drivers able to offer any discounts. Thus, the pricing algorithm takes away the freedom of riders and drivers to choose the best price on the basis of competition, as both have to accept the price set by the pricing algorithm. As per the terms and conditions agreed upon between Ola and Uber with their respective drivers, despite the fact that the drivers are independent entities who are not employees or agents of Ola or Uber, the driver is bound to accept the trip fare reflected in the app at the end of the trip, without having any discretion insofar as the same is concerned. The drivers receive their share of the fare only after the deduction of a commission by Ola and Uber for the services offered to the rider. Therefore, the Informant alleged that the pricing algorithm used by Ola and Uber artificially manipulates supply and demand, guaranteeing higher fares to drivers who would otherwise compete against one and another. Cooperation between drivers, through the Ola and Uber apps, results in concerted action under section 3(3)(a) read with section 3(1) of the Act. Thus, the Informant submitted that the Ola and Uber apps function akin to a trade association, facilitating the operation of a cartel. Further, since Ola and Uber have greater bargaining power than riders in the determination of price, they are able to implement price discrimination, whereby riders are charged on the basis of their willingness to pay and as a result, artificially inflated fares are paid. Various other averments qua resale price maintenance were also made, alleging a contravention of section 3(4)(e) of the Act.
3. The CCI by its Order dated 06.11.2018, under section 26(2) of the Act, discussed the Information provided by the Appellant/Informant and held:
“13. At the outset, it is highlighted that though the Commission has dealt with few cases in this sector, the allegations in the present case are different from those earlier cases. The present case alleges that Cab Aggregators have used their respective algorithms to facilitate price-fixing between drivers. The Informant has not alleged collusion between the Cab Aggregators i.e. Ola and Uber through their algorithms; rather collusion has been alleged on the part of drivers through the platform of these Cab Aggregators, who purportedly use algorithms to fix prices which the drivers are bound to accept.
xxx xxx xxx
15. In the conventional sense, hub and spoke arrangement refers to exchange of sensitive information between competitors through a third party that facilitates the cartelistic behaviour of such competitors. The same does not seem to apply to the facts of the present case. In case of Cab Aggregators model, the estimation of fare through App is done by the algorithm on the basis of large data sets, popularly referred to as ‘big data’. Such algorithm seemingly takes into account personalised information of riders along with other factors e.g. time of the day, traffic situation, special conditions/events, festival, weekday/weekend which all determine the demand-supply situation etc. Resultantly, the algorithmically determined pricing for each rider and each trip tends to be different owing to the interplay of large data sets. Such pricing does not appear to be similar to the ‘hub and spoke’ arrangement as understood in the traditional competition parlance. A hub and spoke arrangement generally requires the spokes to use a third party platform (hub) for exchange of sensitive information, including information on prices which can facilitate price fixing. For a cartel to operate as a hub and spoke, there needs to be a conspiracy to fix prices, which requires existence of collusion in the first place. In the present case, the drivers may have acceded to the algorithmically determined prices by the platform (Ola/Uber), this cannot be said to be amounting to collusion between the drivers. In the case of ride-sourcing and ride-sharing services, a hub-and-spoke cartel would require an agreement between all drivers to set prices through the platform, or an agreement for the platform to coordinate prices between them. There does not appear to be any such agreement between drivers inter-se to delegate this pricing power to the platform/Cab Aggregators. Thus, the Commission finds no substance in the first allegation raised by the Informant.
xxx xxx xxx
17. …In case of app-based taxi services, the dynamic pricing can and does on many occasions drive the prices to levels much lower than the fares that would have been charged by independent taxi drivers. Thus, there does not seem to be any fixed floor price that is set and maintained by the aggregators for all drivers and the centralized pricing mechanism cannot be viewed as a vertical instrument employed to orchestrate price-fixing cartel amongst the drivers…
xxx xxx xxx
18. Based on the foregoing discussion, the allegations raised by the Informant with regard to price fixing under section 3(3)(a) read with section 3(1), resale price maintenance agreement under section 3(4)(e) read with section 3(1). Moreover, the Commission observes that existence of an agreement, understanding or arrangement, demonstrating/indicating meeting of minds, is a sine qua non for establishing a contravention under Section 3 of the Act. In the present case neither there appears to be any such agreement or meeting of minds between the Cab Aggregators and their respective drivers nor between the drivers inter-se. In result thereof, no contravention of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act appears to be made out given the facts of the present case.
19. Further, the allegation as regards price discrimination also seems to be misplaced and unsupported by any evidence on record. Price discrimination can perhaps be scrutinised under Section 4 of the Act, which has not been alleged by the Informant. Imposition of discriminatory price is prohibited under Section 4(2)(a)(ii) of the Act only when indulged in by a dominant enterprise. It is not the Informant’s case that any of the OPs is dominant in the app-based taxi services market. Given this, the Commission does not find it appropriate to delve into such analysis given that the market in question features two players, Ola as well as Uber, none of which is alleged to be dominant. Further, the provisions of the Act clearly stipulate dominant position by only one enterprise or one group and does not recognise collective dominance. This position was amply made clear in Case Nos. 6 & 74 of 2015 and later reiterated in Case Nos. 25, 26, 27 & 28 of 2017, both matters pertaining to the Cab Aggregators market. Thus, given these facts and legal position, the Commission rejects the allegation of the Informant with regard to price discrimination.
20. …The situation of cement manufacturers colluding through a trade association is different from an App providing taxi/cab services. If drivers were colluding using an App as a platform, the said arrangement would have amounted to cartelisation; however, this cannot be equated with the facts of the present cases as demanded by the Informant. Ola and Uber are not an association of drivers, rather they act as separate entities from their respective drivers. In the present situation, a rider books his/her ride at any given time which is accepted by an anonymous driver available in the area, and there is no opportunity for such driver to coordinate its action with other drivers. This cannot be termed as a cartel activity/conduct through Ola/Uber’s platform. Thus, the present case is different from the Cement case, not only with regard to adoption of digital App but also with regard to other relevant aspects as elucidated hereinbefore.
xxx xxx xxx
23. Based on the foregoing, the Commission is of the view that no case of contravention of the provisions of Section 3 has been made out and the matter is accordingly closed herewith under Section 26(2) of the Act.”
4. The Appellant/Informant, being aggrieved by the Order of the CCI, filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal [“NCLAT”] which resulted in the impugned judgment dated 29.05.2020. This judgment recorded that the point as to resale price maintenance was not pressed before it, after which it delved into the locus standi of the Appellant to move the CCI. After setting out section 19 of the Act, the NCLAT held:
“16. It is true that the concept of locus standi has been diluted to some extent by allowing public interest litigation, class action and actions initiated at the hands of consumer and trade associations. Even the whistle blowers have been clothed with the right to seek redressal of grievances affecting public interest by enacting a proper legal framework. However, the fact remains that when a statute like the Competition Act specifically provides for the mode of taking cognizance of allegations regarding contravention of provisions relating to certain anti-competitive agreement and abuse of dominant position by an enterprise in a particular manner and at the instance of a person apart from other modes viz. suo motu or upon a reference from the competitive government or authority, reference to receipt of any information from any person in section 19(1) (a) of the Act has necessarily to be construed as a reference to a person who has suffered invasion of his legal rights as a consumer or beneficiary of healthy competitive practices. Any other interpretation would make room for unscrupulous people to rake issues of anticompetitive agreements or abuse of dominant position targeting some enterprises with oblique motives. In the instant case, the Informant claims to be an Independent Law-Practitioner. There is nothing on the record to show that he has suffered a legal injury at the hands of Ola and Uber as a consumer or as a member of any consumer or trade association. Not even a solitary event of the Informant of being a victim of unfair price fixation mechanism at the hands of Ola and Uber or having suffered on account of abuse of dominant position of either of the two enterprises have been brought to the notice of this Appellate Tribunal. We are, therefore, constrained to hold that the Informant has no locus standi to maintain an action qua the alleged contravention of Act.”
(emphasis in original)
5. Despite having held that the Informant had no locus standi to move the CCI, the NCLAT went into the merits of the case and held:
“17. Assuming though not accepting the proposition that the Informant has locus to lodge information qua alleged contravention of the Act and appeal at his instance is maintainable, on merits also we are of the considered opinion that business model of Ola and Uber does not support the allegation of Informant as regards price discrimination. According to Informant, the Cab Aggregators used their respective algorithms to facilitate price fixing between drivers. It is significant to notice that there is no allegation of collusion between the Cab Aggregators through their algorithms which necessarily implies an admission on the part of Informant that the two taxi service providers are operating independent of each other. It is also not disputed that besides Ola and Uber there are other players also in the field who offer their services to commuters/ riders in lieu of consideration. It emerges from the record that both Ola and Uber provide radio taxi services on demand. A consumer is required to download the app before he is able to avail the services of the Cab Aggregators. A cab is booked by a rider using the respective App of the Cab Aggregators which connects the rider with the driver and provides an estimate of fare using an algorithm. The allegation of Informant that the drivers attached to Cab Aggregators are independent third party service provider and not in their employment, thereby price determination by Cab Aggregators amounts to price fixing on behalf of drivers, has to be outrightly rejected as no collusion inter se the Cab Aggregators has been forthcoming from the Informant. The concept of hub and spoke cartel stated to be applicable to the business model of Ola and Uber as a hub with their platforms acting as a hub for collusion inter se the spokes i.e. drivers resting upon US Class Action Suit titled “Spencer Meyer v. Travis Kalanick” has no application as the business model of Ola and Uber (as it operates in India) does not manifest in restricting price competition among drivers to the detriment of its riders. The matter relates to foreign antitrust jurisdiction with different connotation and cannot be imported to operate within the ambit and scope of the mechanism dealing with redressal of competition concerns under the Act. It is significant to note that the Informant in the instant case has alleged collusion on the part of drivers through the platform of the Cab Aggregators who are stated to be using their algorithms to fix prices which are imposed on the drivers. In view of allegation of collusion inter se the drivers through the platform of Ola and Uber, it is ridiculous on the part of Informant to harp on the tune of hub and spoke raised on the basis of law operating in a foreign jurisdiction which cannot be countenanced. The argument in this core is repelled.
Admittedly, under the business model of Ola, there is no exchange of information amongst the drivers and Ola. The taxi drivers connected with Ola platform have no inter se connectivity and lack the possibility of sharing information with regard to the commuters and the earnings they make out of the rides provided. This excludes the probability of collusion inter se the drivers through the platform of Ola. In so far as Uber is concerned, it provides a technology service to its driver partners and riders through the Uber App and assist them in finding a potential ride and also recommends a fare for the same. However, the driver partners as also the riders are free to accept such ride or choose the App of competing service, including choosing alternative modes of transport. Even with regard to fare though Uber App would recommend a fare, the driver partners have liberty to negotiate a lower fare. It is, therefore, evident that the Cab Aggregators do not function as an association of its driver partners. Thus, the allegation of their facilitating a cartel defies the logic and has to be repelled.
18. Now coming to the issue of abuse of dominant position, be it seen that the Commission, having been equipped with the necessary wherewithal and having dealt with allegations of similar nature in a number of cases as also based on information in public domain found that there are other players offering taxi service/ transportation service/ service providers in transport sector and the Cab Aggregators in the instant case distinctly do not hold dominant position in the relevant market. Admittedly, these two Cab Aggregators are not operating as a joint venture or a group, thus both enterprises taken together cannot be deemed to be holding a dominant position within the ambit of Section 4 of the Act. Even otherwise, none of the two enterprises is independently alleged to be holding a dominant position in the relevant market of providing services. This proposition of fact being an admitted position in the case, question of abuse of dominant position has to be outrightly rejected.”
(emphasis in original)
Based on these findings, the appeal was accordingly dismissed.
6. The Appellant/Informant, who appeared in person before this Court, referred to a Services Agreement between Uber and its drivers, updated on 08.09.2015, and an Agreement between Ola and its transport service providers, dated 01.11.2016. He reiterated the submissions made before the CCI and the NCLAT. In particular, he attacked the finding of the NCLAT as to locus standi and referred us to various provisions of the Act, including, in particular, sections 19 and 35, arguing that the amendments made in the sections would show that any person can be an informant who can approach the CCI, as one does not have to be a “consumer” or a “complainant”, which was the position before the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007 [“2007 Amendment”]. He contrasted these provisions with sections 53B and 53T of the Act, where the expression used is “person aggrieved”, but hastened to add that once an informant had moved the CCI, for the purposes of filing an appeal, such informant would certainly be a “person aggrieved”, howsoever restricted the expression “person aggrieved” may be in law.
7. The Appellant then argued substantially what was submitted before the CCI and NCLAT on the merits, stating that the arrangements in the present case amounted to “hub and spoke” arrangements and referred us to a particular diagram depicting Ola and Uber as the “hub” and drivers as “spokes” (at page 263 of the paper book of the Civil Appeal), which indicated that the provisions of section 3 of the Act had clearly been violated.
8. As against this, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of Uber, took us through the concurrent findings of fact of the CCI and the NCLAT, and stated that they could not be said to be, in any sense, even remotely perverse and would therefore have to be upheld. He was at pains to stress that every driver of a taxi cab, who uses the Ola or Uber app, can have several such apps including both Ola, Uber and the apps of some of their competitors, and can take private rides de hors these apps as well. There is, therefore, complete discretion with the drivers to negotiate fares with riders, not only insofar as Ola and Uber are concerned, but also otherwise, there being nothing in either the agreements or practice, which prevents them from doing so. Furthermore, there would be no question of any anti-competitive practice in the form of cartelization, as there are thousands of drivers, none of whom have anything to do with each other, there being no common meeting of minds as far as they are concerned. On the contrary, the apps allow drivers to negotiate fares that are below what is quoted in the app, thereby increasing competition and giving riders greater flexibility to take rides with those drivers who offer the most competitive fares.
9. Shri Rajshekhar Rao, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Ola, also supported Dr. Singhvi’s submissions on merits, but went on to add that even if the Appellant could be said to be an informant for the purposes of section 19 of the Act, he could not be said to be a “person, aggrieved” for the purposes of filing an appeal under section 53B under the Act, and referred to the judgment in Adi Pherozshah Gandhi v. H.M. Seervai, Advocate General of Maharashtra, (1970) 2 SCC 484, [“Adi Pherozshah Gandhi”]. He also went on to argue that information can be provided by persons like the Appellant at the behest of competitors, which will have a deleterious effect on persons like Ola and Uber, as the value of their shares in the share market would instantly drop the moment the factum of the filing of such information before the CCI would be advertised. In any event, he exhorted us to lay down that in such cases heavy costs should be imposed to deter such persons from approaching the CCI with frivolous and/or mala fide information, filed at the behest of competitors.
10. The learned ASG, Shri Balbir Singh, appearing on behalf of the CCI, took us through the provisions of the Act together with the regulations made under it, and stated that though he would support the CCI’s Order closing the case, he would also support the right of the Appellant to approach the CCI with information.
11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the various parties, it is necessary to first set out the sections of the Act which have a bearing on the matter before us:
“Definitions
2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
xxx xxx xxx
(c) “cartel” includes an association of producers, sellers, distributors, traders or service providers who, by agreement amongst themselves, limit, control or attempt to control the production, distribution, sale or price of, or, trade in goods or provision of services;
xxx xxx xxx
(f) “consumer” means any person who—
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, whether such purchase of goods is for resale or for any commercial purpose or for personal use;
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person whether such hiring or availing of services is for any commercial purpose or for personal use;
xxx xxx xxx
(l) “person” includes—
(i) an individual;
(ii) a Hindu undivided family;
(iii) a company;
(iv) a firm;
(v) an association of persons or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, in India or outside India;
(vi) any corporation established by or under any Central, State or Provincial Act or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);
(vii) any body corporate incorporated by or under the laws of a country outside India;
(viii) a co-operative society registered under any law relating to co-operative societies;
(ix) a local authority;
(x) every artificial juridical person, not falling within any of the preceding sub-clauses;”
“Anti-competitive agreements
3. (1) No enterprise or association of enterprises or person or association of persons shall enter into any agreement in respect of production, supply, distribution, storage, acquisition or control of goods or provision of services, which causes or is likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition within India.
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Any agreement entered into between enterprises or associations of enterprises or persons or associations of persons or between any person and enterprise or practice carried on, or decision taken by, any association of enterprises or association of persons, including cartels, engaged in identical or similar trade of goods or provision of services, which—
(a) directly or indirectly determines purchase or sale prices;…
xxx xxx xxx
(4) Any agreement amongst enterprises or persons at different stages or levels of the production chain in different markets, in respect of production, supply, distribution, storage, sale or price of, or trade in goods or provision of services, including—
xxx xxx xxx
(e) resale price maintenance”
“Duties of Commission
18. Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Commission to eliminate practices having adverse effect on competition, promote and sustain competition, protect the interests of consumers and ensure freedom of trade carried on by other participants, in markets in India:
Provided that the Commission may, for the purpose of discharging its duties or performing its functions under this Act, enter into any memorandum or arrangement with the prior approval of the Central Government, with any agency of any foreign country.”
“Inquiry into certain agreements and dominant position of enterprise
19. (1) The Commission may inquire into any alleged contravention of the provisions contained in subsection (1) of section 3 or sub-section (1) of section 4 either on its own motion or on—
(a) receipt of any information, in such manner and accompanied by such fee as may be determined by regulations, from any person, consumer or their association or trade association; or
(b) a reference made to it by the Central Government or a State Government or a statutory authority… ”
“Procedure for inquiry under section 19
26. (1) On receipt of a reference from the Central Government or a State Government or a statutory authority or on its own knowledge or information received under section 19, if the Commission is of the opinion that there exists a prima facie case, it shall direct the Director General to cause an investigation to be made into the matter:
Provided that if the subject matter of an information received is, in the opinion of the Commission, substantially the same as or has been covered by any previous information received, then the new information may be clubbed with the previous information.
(2) Where on receipt of a reference from the Central Government or a State Government or a statutory authority or information received under section 19, the Commission is of the opinion that there exists no prima facie case, it shall close the matter forthwith and pass such orders as it deems fit and send a copy of its order to the Central Government or the State Government or the statutory authority or the parties concerned, as the case may be….”
“Appearance before Commission
35. A person or an enterprise or the Director General may either appear in person or authorise one or more chartered accountants or company secretaries or cost accountants or legal practitioners or any of his or its officers to present his or its case before the Commission.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,—
(a) “chartered accountant” means a chartered accountant as defined in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (38 of 1949) and who has obtained a certificate of practice under sub-section (1) of section 6 of that Act;
(b) “company secretary” means a company secretary as defined in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Company Secretaries Act, 1980 (56 of 1980) and who has obtained a certificate of practice under sub-section (1) of section 6 of that Act;
(c) “cost accountant” means a cost accountant as defined in clause (b) of sub section (1) of section 2 of the Cost and Works Accountants Act, 1959 (23 of 1959) and who has obtained a certificate of practice under sub- section (1) of section 6 of that Act;
(d) “legal practitioner” means an advocate, vakil or an attorney of any High Court, and includes a pleader in practice.”
“Penalty for offences in relation to furnishing of information
45. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 44, if a person, who furnishes or is required to furnish under this Act any particulars, documents or any information,—
(a) makes any statement or furnishes any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be false in any material particular; or
(b) omits to state any material fact knowing it to be material; or
(c) wilfully alters, suppresses or destroys any document which is required to be furnished as aforesaid, such person shall be punishable with fine which may extend to rupees one crore as may be determined by the Commission.
(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), the Commission may also pass such other order as it deems fit.”
“Appeal to Appellate Tribunal
53B. (1) The Central Government or the State Government or a local authority or enterprise or any person, aggrieved by any direction, decision or order referred to in clause (a) of section 53A may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.
(2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within a period of sixty days from the date on which a copy of the direction or decision or order made by the Commission is received by the Central Government or the State Government or a local authority or enterprise or any person referred to in that sub-section and it shall be in such form and be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed:
Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of sixty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period.
(3) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the parties to the appeal, an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or setting aside the direction, decision or order appealed against.
(4) The Appellate Tribunal shall send a copy of every order made by it to the Commission and the parties to the appeal.
(5) The appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (1) shall be dealt with by it as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made by it to dispose of the appeal within six months from the date of receipt of the appeal.”
“Awarding compensation
