( 1. ) UNDER Section 4 (2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, for short, the Act, Central Government has issued Notification No. A-11013/44/86-AT dated 29-6-1988 establishing Madhya Pradesh State Administrative tribunal with effect from 2-8-1988, notifying further therein that the said date shall be the "appointed days" within the meaning of Clause (c) of Section 3 of the Act. By a separate Notification, No. F. A. 4-8-1988-XLIX-1, dated 29-8-1988, in exercise of powers under Section 5 (8) of the Act, the State Government has specified "jabalpur as the place where the Principal seat of the Tribunal shall ordinarily sit". It is this later notification of which validity is seriously challenged in this matter.

( 2. ) BE it noted in this connection that the Act was amended on 25-3-1986, though under Section 1 (2) of the Amending Act it was contemplated that the provisions of the said Act would be deemed to have came into force on 22nd day of January, 1986 unless otherwise provided elsewhere therein. Old sub-section (7) of Section 5 was 4 substituted by new sub-sections (7) and (8) which read as follows :

" (7) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the Benches of the Central administrative Tribunal shall ordinarily sit at New Delhi (which shall be known as the principal Bench), Allahabad, Calcutta, Madras, New Bombay and at such other places as the Central Government may, by notification, specify. (8) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the places at which the principal Bench and other Benches of a State Administrative Tribunal shall ordinarily sit shall be such as the State Government may, by notification, specify".

( 3. ) THE Amending Act aforesaid, also made alterations in, among others, sections 28 and 29. As per amended Section 28, "no Court except (a) the Supreme court ; or (b) any Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court or other authority constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 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". However, we extract sub-section (1) of Section 29 in extenso:

"29. Transfer of pending cases. (1) Every suit or other proceeding pending before any court or other authority immediately before the date of establishment of a Tribunal under this Act, being a suit or proceeding the cause of action whereon it is based is such that it would have been, if it had arisen after such establishment, within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal, shall stand transferred on that date to such Tribunal: provided ,that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending as aforesaid before a High Court. " be it noted that sub-section (2) is of the same object and purport, though it deals with the case of a particular class of employees, namely, "any local or other authority or corporation or Society".

( 4. ) THIS petition was admitted on 8-1-1988, evidently before establishment of the stat;; Administrative Tribunal, and on that date itself petitioners counsels contention that the case was covered by a Bench decision of this Court in Brij Kishore Sharma, 198v. M. P. L. J. 363=1988 JLJ 137, was noted. When the matter next came before us on 10-8 1988 the situation had changed and a question was raised whether this matter had to b: decided by the State Administrative Tribunal and whether this Court having lost jurisdiction in the matter, the petition has to be transferred to the said Tribunal for disposal. Counsel were heard on that question on 18-8-1988 and 19-8-1988. Because of the importance of the question and the fact that the same question had to be decided gen rally with respect to a large number of cases involving service matters, pending disposal at this Bench, arguments were advanced at the Bar by some other counsel also appearing in other matters. We had the advantage of hearing arguments of s