By the Court.—The appellants are in appeal against the order dated 30th September, 2010, whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to hold that the writ Court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India would not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition preferred by the appellants and the remedy for the appellants will be to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

2. At the hearing of this appeal, on behalf of the appellants, learned counsel submits that the issue of vires of a notification cannot be gone into by the CAT, as it is an existing condition of service and consequently, it was open to the Association of Employees to have moved this Court in the exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction.

3. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel has drawn our attention to Rule 4 (5) of the Rules framed under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1985’), which are known as the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1987’) as also to the judgments of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others, (1997) 3 SCC 261 and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and another v. Subhash Sharma, (2002) 4 SCC 145. In answer to that, on behalf of the appellants, learned counsel has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad, (2003) SCC (2) 632.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. At the outset, we may only reproduce Rule 4 (5) of the Rules, 1987, which reads as follows :

“4 (5) (a). Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) to (3) the Tribunal may permit more than one person to join together and file a single application if it is satisfied, having regard to the cause and the nature of relief prayed for that they have a common interest in the matter.

(b) Such permission may also be granted to an Association representing the persons desirous of joining in a single application provided, however, that the application shall disclose the class/grade/categories or persons on whose behalf it has been filed [provided that at least one affected person joins such an application].”

6. It would thus be clear that once several persons can come together for filing an application before the CAT, a representative body like an Association of Employees, will also have a right on behalf of such employees to raise their disputes before the CAT. In that case, it is, therefore, clear that the appellants are the proper persons to have moved this Court for the relief as sought for by them on behalf of the employees working with the respondents.

7. The question, that we are really called upon to answer, is as to whether it is open to the CAT to consider the vires of the notification which has been challenged before us. In our opinion, the issue is no longer res integra. We may first refer to paragraph 93 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar (supra), which reads as under :

“93. Before moving on to other aspects, we may summarise our conclusions on the jurisdictional powers of these Tribunals. The Tribunals are competent to hear matters where the vires of statutory provisions are questioned. However, in discharging this duty, they cannot act as substitutes for the High Courts and the Supreme Court which have, under our constitutional set-up, been specifically entrusted with such an obligation. Their function in this respect is only supplementary and all such decisions of the Tribunal will be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the respective High Courts. The Tribunals will consequently also have the power to test the vires of subordinate legislations and rules. However, this power of the Tribunals will be subject to one important exception. The Tribunals shall not entertain any question regarding the vires of their parent statutes following the settled principle that a