Krishna Sahai & Ors Vs. State of U.P.
& Ors  INSC 107 (23 March 1990)
Rangnath Misra Rangnath Punchhi, M.M. Ramaswamy, K.
1990 AIR 1137 1990 SCR (2) 168 1990 SCC (2) 673 JT 1990 (2) 172 1990 SCALE
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.
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.
the case to the Public Services Tribunal for disposal on merits, the Court,
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., 
1 SCC 124, referred to.
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
case the existing Services Tribunal is continued 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]
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6729 of 1983.
the Judgment and Order dated 22.3.1983 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P.
No. 7787 of 1979.
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
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.
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,
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.,  1 SCC
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
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.
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.
would be no order as to costs.
Appeal disposed of.