K.J.SHETTY, C.J. - (1.) A Division Bench of this Court in Udai Bhan Singh Chauhan v. Union of India, 1986 0 UPLBEC 329 while disagreeing with the view taken by another Division Bench in M.B. Shukla v. Union of India, 1986 0 UPLBEC 317 : (1986 Lab IC 1034) has referred the following two questions for the opinion of a larger Bench : (1) Whether Section 28 read with Section 14(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (Central Act 13 of 1985) excludes the jurisdiction, power and authority of this Court exercisable under Article 226/227 of the Constitution in this behalf? (2) Whether action in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in relation to this subject matter is "proceeding" within the meaning of the expression used in Section 29(1) of the Act and, as such, stands transferred on the appointed date of the Central Administrative Tribunal?
(2.) This Full Bench, however, has been constituted to dispose of the entire case of Udai Bhan Singh Chauhan along with other connected writ petitions.
(3.) Before we consider the aforesaid questions, it will be necessary to examine the view taken by this Court in the case of M.B. Shukla. There the question arose as to whether the High Court has got jurisdiction to entertain writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution after the Central Administrative Tribunal has been constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (called shortly the "Act"). Mr. R.M. Sahai, J. speaking for the Bench observed that the High Courts under the Constitution exercise two powers one arising out of law framed by the appropriate legislature, Central or State, and the other constitutional. Former can be regulated, withdrawn, whittled or expanded but latter being prerogative in nature essential for society governed by rule of law cannot be rendered dormant by legislation express or implied. While examining the scope of S.29(1) of the Act, learned judge observed that proviso to S.29(1) if read in proper perspective leaves hardly any scope for doubt that it was never the legislative intent to transfer a writ petition since the writ proceeding cannot be deemed to have been included in the word "proceeding" used in S.29(1).;