B.D. Agarwal, J. - (1.) Common question which these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution give rise is whether subsequent to the enforcement of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority, constituted under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, in respect of the remuneration relating to persons employed in connection with the affairs of the Union of India, stands ousted. Respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 13344 of 1986 brought Original Suit No. 13 of 1982 in the civil court disputing the retrenchment directed against him with effect from August 19, 1981, and seeking declaration to the effect that he continued in service. The suit was contested by the petitioners, who pleaded, inter alia, that the respondent had not put in 240 days' continuous service and the retrenchment could not be invalid. The trial court decreed the suit on May 5, 1983. The appeal filed by the petitioners in the District Court was dismissed on May 1, 1985. Second appeal remains pending in this Court. Meanwhile Respondent No. 1 made an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act to the Prescribed Authority claiming wages for the period of August 19, 1981, to November 30, 1985, and in addition compensation at the rate of ten times of the wages unpaid. The petitioners raised a plea before the Prescribed Authority to the effect that, in view of Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the application may not be maintainable. This has been turned down by the Prescribed Authority in the impugned order made on June 5, 1986. It is not necessary to refer to the facts giving rise to the other writ petitions which are parallel in nature, some of them arising from applications under Section 15 of Payment of Wages Act made before November 1, 1985 (when the Administrative Tribunals Act came into force) and some made subsequent thereto. Aggrieved against the orders made by the Prescribed Authority declining to uphold the preliminary objection raised from the petitioners' side, they approached this Court seeking writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings pending before the Prescribed Authority and also mandamus for direction to the Prescribed Authority to transfer such pending matters to the Administrative Tribunal for adjudication.
(2.) We have heard Sri Lalji Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Sarvasri K.P. Agarwal, Shyam Narain, and V.K. Goel, appearing for the respondents.
(3.) The provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, so far as they relate to the Central Administrative Tribunals, have come into force on November 1, 1985. The Act has, for its object, to provide, inter alia, for the adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union in pursuance of Article 323-A of the Constitution. Article 323-A was brought in the Constitution by the Constitution (Forty Second) Amendment Act. From the Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the Bill of that Act, it would appear that the proposal was to reduce the mounting arrears in High Courts and to secure speedy disposal of service matters. The Bill which resulted into the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides, as appearing from Statement of Objects and Reasons, for: (a) the jurisdiction, powers (including the power to punish for contempt) and authority which may be exercised by each Tribunal; (b) the procedure (including provision as to limitation and rules of evidence) to be followed by the State Tribunals; (c) exclusion of the jurisdiction of all courts, except that of the Supreme Court, under Article 136 of the Constitution relating to service matters; (d) the transfer to each Administrative Tribunal of any suit or other proceedings pending before any court or other authority immediately before the establishment of such Tribunal as would have been within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal if the causes of action on which such suits or proceedings are based had arisen after such establishment.;