IMPORTANT POINT
State Legislature was competent to enact Sections 3, 4, 5, 5-B and 5-C of U.P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976. These provisions are not arbitrary and, thereafter, not violative of Articles 14, 16 or any other provisions of the Constitution. They are not against the basic structure of the Constitution of India either.

JUDGMENT

Bhan, J.-These appeals are directed against a common order passed by a Full Bench of Five Judges of the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Writ Petition No. 4285 (MB) of 1999, Public Services Tribunal Bar Association vs. State of U.P. & Anr., Civil Writ Petition No. 871 (MB) of 2000, Afzal Ahmad Siddiqui vs. State of U.P. & Ors., and Civil Writ Petition No. 1262 (MB) of 2000, Shireesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Ors., wherein the High Court has dismissed the writ petitions challenging the vires of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976, as amended from time to time. The High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the Act as well as the subsequent amendments made therein.

2. To effectively adjudicate the dispute arising in these appeals it would be necessary to have a look at the events in a chronological order which are given in brief as under:

3. The U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 ( for short "the Act") was promulgated relating to public servants of the State Government and the employees of the government undertakings, local bodies etc. having power to grant interim relief as well. Before the coming into force of the Act the public servants were approaching civil courts for redressal of their grievances arising out of their service matters by filing civil suits before the civil court of competent jurisdiction or by approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. After the coming into force of the Act the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was taken away. The decision to have a separate service Tribunal was taken by the State Government after considering the increasing workload of the civil courts and the delay in disposal of the service matters. The purpose for creating the Tribunal has been indicated in the statement of objects of the Act, which reads as under:

"The number of cases in the courts pertaining to the employment matters of the Government servants was constantly on the increase. This, besides increasing the workload in the courts also delayed considerably the disposal of such cases. Such litigation also involved money and time of government servants. In these circumstances, it was decided to establish Public Services Tribunals to deal with cases pertaining to employment matters of government servants and also of the employees of the local authorities and Government Corporations and Companies, so that the employees may get quick and inexpenses justice. It was also decided that after the establishment of the Tribunals such suits be barred from being file in the subordinate courts."

4. Under the original Act the State Government constituted five Tribunals each comprising of an IAS Officer as a Chairman and a Judicial Officer of the rank of District Judge as a Judicial Member. Each Tribunal was vested with the jurisdiction over service matters of different departments to the State Government. Under Section 4 of the Act any person who is or has been a public servant could file a claim petition in any manner relating to employment as such public servant if his employer had dealt with him in a manner which was not in conformity with any contract or provisions of Article 16 or Article 311 of the Constitution of India or with any rules or law having force under Article 309 or Article 313 of the Constitution. Under Section 5(5)(j) of the original Act the Tribunals had the power to pass interim orders in respect of all matters within their jurisdiction including orders of dismissal, removal, reduction in rank, termination, reversion and compulsory retirement.

5. The Act was amended by the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) (Amendment) Act (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1977). By the said amendment after sub-section (5) of Section 5, sub-sections (5-A) and (5-B) were inserted. Under Section 5 (5-A) the Tribunal could pass an interim order in specific type of cases, but under Section 5 (5-B) the Tribunal was prohibited from passing interim orders in respect of the order made or purporting to