NISHITA MHATRE, J.

( 1 ) BY this Petition, the Petitioners impugn the decision of the Central Administrative tribunal in dismissing the Original application filed by them in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of krishan Prasad Gupta v. Controller, Printing and Stationery AIR 1996 SC 408 : 1996 (1) SCC 69 : 1996-1- LLJ-296. The Original application has been dismissed because the tribunal was of the opinion that the claim made by the Petitioners for payment of overtime wages in accordance with Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948 was not maintainable before the Tribunal as it lacked jurisdiction to decide the issue.

( 2 ) THE undisputed facts in the present case are as follows: the Petitioners are working as supervisors with the India Security Press. Prior to their promotions as supervisors they were being paid overtime allowance under section 59 of the Factories Act. After their promotion as supervisors, the India Security press stopped paying them overtime at the rate payable under the Factories Act. About 44 supervisors had approached the Central administrative Tribunal by preferring original Application No. 761 of 1988 claiming overtime allowance in accordance with Section 59 (1) of the Factories Act. Several such Original Applications were filed by various other supervisors. All these original Applications were allowed, on July 28, 1997. Another batch of supervisors preferred Original Application No. 962 of 1996 for claiming the same allowance. However, the Tribunal relying on the judgment of the Krishan Prasad Gupta (supra) held that the claim under the factories Act, which was a corresponding law, could not be made under Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. The petitioners filed Original Application No. 26 of 2000 claiming overtime allowance under the Factories Act since others in the same cadre had been granted this allowance in the earlier Original Applications filed before the central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioners based their demand on the principle of equal pay for equal work. This Original application wasdismissed on January 19, 2001 in view of the decision of the Tribunal in original Application No. 962 of 1996 dated july 25, 1997. The Tribunal has concluded that although the Original Applications filed in the year 1996-97 by similarly situated supervisors had been allowed by the Tribunal, after the decision in the case of Krishan Prasad Gupta (supra), it could not take the same view as the tribunal had taken in those Original applications. The Tribunal instead followed the decision taken by it in several Original applications on July 28, 1997 and rejected the instant Original Application.

( 3 ) THE question which is required to be determined by us is whether a claim made under the Factories Act could be denied by the Administrative Tribunal because Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act ousts the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative tribunal. Section 28 of the Act reads as under:

"28. Exclusion of jurisdiction of Courts, except the Supreme Court.- On and from the date from which any jurisdiction, powers and authority, becomes exercisable under this Act by a Tribunal in relation to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment to any Service or post or service matters concerning members of any Service or persons appointed to any Service or post, no Court except - (a) the Supreme Court; or (b) any Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court or other authority constituted under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) or any other corresponding law for the time being in force, 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. "

( 4 ) THUS, the Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act can exercise the jurisdiction in service matters except when these matters fall within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal, Labour