http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: KRISHNA SAHAI & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT23/03/1990

BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH PUNCHHI, M.M. RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  1990 AIR 1137            1990 SCR  (2) 168  1990 SCC  (2) 673        JT 1990 (2)   172  1990 SCALE  (1)802

ACT:     U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976.’ Remedy  before Services  Tribunal  not availed--Writ petition  before  High Court--Whether  maintainable--Desirability  of  setting   up Tribunal  under the Administrative Tribunals Act,  1985  ex- pressed.

HEADNOTE:     The  writ petitions preferred by the  appellants  before the  High Court were sought to be resisted by the  State  on the  preliminary  objection  that they  had  an  alternative remedy available before the Public Services Tribunal set  up under the U.P. Act 17 of 1976. The appellants took the  plea that  filing of a claim in the Tribunal was not an  adequate alternate  relief inasmuch as it did not have power to  make any  interim order. The High Court declined to exercise  its power under Art. 226 of the Constitution.     Remitting  the case to the Public Services Tribunal  for disposal on merits, the Court,     HELD:  1.  The Uttar Pradesh  Public  Services  Tribunal which  functions  under a State Act does not have  power  to make  any interim order. Under the Administrative  Tribunals Act, 1985. which is a legislation in terms of Art. 323-A  of the  Constitution,  the jurisdiction of the  High  Court  in regard  to service matter is intended to be taken  away  and vested in the Tribunal. It is open to the State to also  set up Tribunals for adjudication of service disputes in  regard to  its employees. Several States have already set up  their own Tribunals under that Act. [170B, 169H, 170C]     S.P.  Sampath Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.,  [1987]  1 SCC 124, referred to.     2.  It is commended to the State to consider the  feasi- bility  of setting up of an appropriate tribunal  under  the Central Act in place of the Services Tribunal so that  apart from  the fact that there would be uniformity in the  matter of  adjudication the High Court would not be  burdened  with service litigations and the Tribunal with plenary powers 169 can function to the satisfaction of everyone. [1701)]     3.  In case the existing Services Tribunal is  continued

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

the  State  should change its manning so that  a  sufficient number  of people qualified in Law could be on the  Tribunal to  ensure  adequate dispensation of justice, and  plan  out diversification  of  the  location of the  Benches  for  the Tribunal. [170E-G]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6729  of 1983.     From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  22.3.1983  of  the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 7787 of 1979.     Shankar Ghosh, R.K. Jain, R.B. Mehrotra, Ms. Abha  Shar- ma,  Ms.  Sangita  Tripathi Mandal, R.P.  Singh,  Harish  N. Salve,  D.K. Garg, Gopal Subramanium, Mrs.  Shobha  Dikshit, C.P. Pandey, S.K. Sabharwal, M.P. Sarawala, R.S. Sodhi, D.D. Gupta,  Shakil Ahmed Syed, K.R.R. Pillai, M.A.  Firoz,  R.D. Upadhyay,  U.S.  Prasad  and C.M. Nayar  for  the  appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     RANGANATH  MISRA,  J. This appeal by special  leave  was heard along with Civil Appeals Nos. 776 of 1984 and 4356  of 1986.  Those two appeals were disposed of by a common  judg- ment  dated March 1, 1990, by remitting the dispute  forming the  subject-matter  of  those appeals to  the  U.P.  Public Services  Tribunal  for disposal on merit and  judgment  was reserved in this appeal as we were of the view that  certain relevant  aspects required notice and we should  commend  to the  U.P. State to bring its Services Tribunal at  par  with the State Administrative Tribunals set up under the  Central Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985.     So far as the merits of the case go, we are of the  view that it should also be remitted for disposal by the Services Tribunal  and we direct that the Tribunal shall  dispose  of the  matter in accordance with its rules by the end of  Sep- tember, 1990.     The  Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985 is a  legisla- tion  in terms of Art. 323A of the Constitution. By  setting up  a  Tribunal  under that Act for  resolution  of  service disputes,  the jurisdiction of the High Court in  regard  to such matters is intended to be taken away and under 170 the  scheme of that Act, the jurisdiction of the High  Court in  regard to service disputes is intended to be  vested  in the Tribunal. That is the view expressed by the Constitution Bench of this Court in S.P. Sampath Kurnar v. Union of India & Ors., [1987] 1 SCC 124.     The  Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal which  func- tions  under  a different State Act does not have  power  to make  any interim order. In fact, exercise of that power  is denied  to the Tribunal by specific provision. That  is  why the  appellants had taken up the plea before the High  Court that  filing of a claim in the Tribunal was not an  adequate alternate relief. In such setting it had been canvassed that the  High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution  was  not debarred from entertaining writ petitions. Under the  Admin- istrative Tribunals Act, it is open to the State to also set up Tribunals for adjudication of service disputes in  regard to  employees of the State. Several States have already  set up  their  own Tribunals. We commend to the State  of  Uttar Pradesh  to  consider the feasibility of setting  up  of  an appropriate  tribunal under the Central Act in place of  the Services Tribunal functioning at present so that apart  from the  fact  that there would be uniformity in the  matter  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

adjudication  of service disputes, the High Court would  not be  burdened with service litigations and the Tribunal  with plenary powers can function to the satisfaction of everyone. case  the Uttar Pradesh Services Tribunal set up  under  the U.P.  No. 17 of 1976 is continued, it would  be  appropriate for  the State of Uttar Pradesh to change its manning and  a sufficient  number of people qualified in Law should  be  on the Tribunal to ensure adequate dispensation of justice  and to maintain judicial temper in the functioning of the Tribu- nal. We find that in Writ Petition No. 373 of 1989  relating to  the self-same question a Bench of this Court has  issued notice wherein the proposal for additional Benches at places like  Allahabad,  Meerut  and Agra apart from  the  seat  at Lucknow have been asked to be considered. We are of the view that  if the Services Tribunal is to continue, it is  neces- sary that the State of Uttar Pradesh should plan out immedi- ately diversification of the location of the Benches for the Tribunal  so that service disputes from all over  the  State are not required to be filed only at Lucknow and on  account of  a  single tribunal disputes would not  pile  up  without disposal. There would be no order as to costs. P.S.S.                                  Appeal disposed of. 171