S.K.Dhaon - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 5th/8th May, 1987, passed by the Prescribed Authority Ghaziabad, the respondent no. 1,
(2.) THE respondent no. 2, Lekhnath Jha, preferred a claim petition under the Payment of Wages Act. Two objections of the preliminary nature were raised before the Prescribed Authority by and on behalf of the petitioner. THE first was that the petition was barred by time. THE Authority has held that the petition has been filed within time. I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the Prescribed Authority holding that the petition had been filed within time at this stage. In fact so far as this poiet is concerned, the writ petition is in substance against an interlocutory order. It is not a fit case for interference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, it is made clear that it will be open to the petitioner to question the legality and properiety of the order of the Prescribed Authority on the question of limitation, if and when an order is passed against the petitioner and if the petitioner is advised to question the legality of the order of the Prescribed Authority on merits. The second objection was that in view of the provisions as contained in Section 6 of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 the Prescribed Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. The argument before the Prescribed Authority was that even a claim with respect to wages could be preferred before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal alone and before no other forum. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act provides that no suit shall lie against the State Government or any local authority etc. for any relief in respect of any matter relating to employment at the instance of any person who is or has been a public servant, including a person specified in clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (4) of Section 1. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 provides that all suits for the like reliefs, and all appeals, revisions, application for review and other incidental or ancillary proceedings (including all proceedings under order XXXIX of the first schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) (Act V of 1908), arising out of such suits, and all applications for permission to sue or appeal as pauper for the like relief, pending before any court subordinate to the High Court and all revisions (arising out of interlocutory orders) pending before the High Court on the date immediately preceding the appointed date shall abate, and their records shall be transferred to such Tribunal as the State Government may specify and thereupon the Tribunal shall decide the case in the same manner as if they were claims referred to it under Section 4.
(3.) A combined reading of the provisions as contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 6 indicates that the suit referred to in both the sub-sections should be instituted before a court stricto-sense. It is also clear that such court should be subordinate to the High Court. In General Manager, North-Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur v. Sripat, 1987 AWC 515 Section 28 of the Adminstrative Tribunals Act, 1985 came up for consideration. The said provision provides that on and from the date from which any jurisdiction, power and authority becomes exercisable under the aforementioned Act by a Tribunal in relation to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment to any Service or persons appointed to any Service or post, no court (except the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution) shall have, or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to such recruitment or matters concerning such recruitment or such service matters. In this case the argument was that in view of the exclusionary provisions had no jurisdiction to entertain a claim petition. A Division Bench of this Court took the view that a Payment of Wages Authority is not a court within the meaning of Section 28 and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Payment of Wages Authority was not ousted on account Of the operation of the provisions of Section 28. I have already indicated that the scheme of Section 6 of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act envisages the pendency of the proceedings in a court. The view taken by this Court in General Manager North Eastern Railways's case is, therefore, apposite. I have, therefore no hesitation in taking the view that the proceedings taken by the respondent no. 2 by means of a claim petition before the payment of Wages Authority are not barred on account of the operation of Section 6 of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act.;