(1) FATE of this appeal hinges on the answer which we ultimately give to the short question "whether the appeals pending in the court of the District Judge under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, were liable to be transferred to the Administrative tribunals under Section 29 of the Administrative tribunals Act, 1985 for disposal on merits or the jurisdiction of the Authority under Section 15 and that of the District Judge under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act to hear and decide Claim Cases and Appeals, respectively remain undisturbed

(2) THE appellant was an employee of the respondent. On 23/11/1987 he filed an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act for recovery of an amount of Rs. 48,274.50 p. on the allegations, inter alia, that the respondent had illegally withheld and had also made unauthorised deductions from his wages progressively over a considerable period of time. This application was registered as Case No. 407 of 1987, notice whereof was issued to the respondent, who after putting in appearance, absented on a number of dates and ultimately the Authority passed an order that the case would proceed ex parte against him. The respondent filed an application for setting aside that order but the application was rejected by order dated 23-6- 1988 against which the respondent filed an appeal under Section 17(1 of the Payment of Wages Act on 15/7/1988 before the District Judge during the pendency of which the tribunal was constituted and consequently, in view of the provisions contained in Section 29 of the Act, the appeal was transferred to the tribunal and the tribunal, by its order dated 31/8/1990. rejected the appeal

(3) IN the meantime, the appellants main application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act was allowed by order dated 20/7/1988 for a sum of Rs. 43,092.50 p. against which the respondent filed an appeal under Section 17(1 of the Payment of Wages Act in the court of the District Judge, Chandigarh, which was also transferred to the tribunal and the tribunal by its judgment and order dated 4/7/1994 allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 20/7/1988 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. It is this order which is challenged before us on the grounds, inter alia, that the appeal pending in the court of the District Judge under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act could not have been legally transferred to the tribunal under Section 29 of the Act and the tribunal, therefore, had no jurisdiction to dispose of it on merits

(4) ADMINISTRATIVE tribunals have been constituted under the Act made by Parliament under Article 323-A of the Constitution for providing an exclusive machinery for the adjudication or trial of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitments, as also conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts, so as to cut down the time spent by public servants in litigation in ordinary courts and to provide them relief at the hands of persons hearing and deciding service litigation exclusively

(5) THE vires of the Act has already been upheld by this court in S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India with the finding that with effect from the date on which the tribunals were constituted, the jurisdiction of the High court in entertaining the writ petitions in service matters came to an end. Whether the above view is correct or not and whether the abrogation of the High courts jurisdiction in entertaining writs in service matters under Article 226 of the Constitution amounts to a destruction of the basic character of the Constitution are questions which have since been referred to the Constitution bench whose answer is still awaited

(6) IN S.P. Sampath case, it was held that tribunal was a substitute for the High court. In order to confer exclusive jurisdiction in service matters on the tribunal, it has been provided in Section 14 of the Act that the tribunal shall exercise, on and f