T.N. Singh, J.

1. In this matter, we had passed an interim order on 5th September 1988, since reported in 1988 MPLJ 640. By that order, we decided the general question as to whether all petitions concerning "service matters" filed in this Court at this Bench under Article 226 of the Constitution would stand automatically "transferred" to the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, for short, the 'Tribunal', established on and from 2nd August 1988. We took the view that Benches of the said Tribunal not being established at the existing "seats" of this Court such as this Bench, there would be no automatic transfer of those cases to the "principal seat" of the Tribunal established at Jabalpur under State Government Notification dated 28th August 1988.

2. Accordingly, the instant petition as also other petitions involving "service matters" have been retained at this Bench's Registry, to be dealt with in accordance with the directions made by us in the order passed on 5th September 1988. In this petition, as also in several other petitions, another question of jurisdiction remained to be determined which we are deciding today. It is contended that not all types of "service matters" and cases of not all classes of petitioners are to be dealt with by the Tribunal, Only in those cases in which the Tribunal has been expressly vested with jurisdiction under Sections 15 and 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, for short, the 'Act', this Court has no jurisdiction with respect to pending cases as also cases instituted after establishment of the Tribunal. It is further contended that Section 28 of the Act does not contemplate total exclusion thereunder of this Court's jurisdiction with respect to "service matters'", under Article 226 of the Constitution, as all classes of persons in the employment of the State are not required to go to the Tribunal.

3. In this petition, as also in M.P.Nos. 1266 and 1300 of 1988, listed for analogous hearing on the preliminary question, the petitioners had been employed on daily wages. We would, therefore, confine our decision in this matter to the case of petitioners only of that class. This decision shall apply to all other pending petitions of the same type though those have not been listed for analogous hearing with these three matters and indeed, also to all future cases, to be instituted in this Court by the petitioners of same class.

4. Before we refer to the provisions of the Act, we consider it appropriate to refer first to its Preamble. In the long title of the Act, it is said that the Act is meant to "provide for the adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State...". Although the term "post" is defined in Section 3, it has little conceptual content and indeed, the term "services" too, unfortunately, is similarly defined therein. The two terms respectively mean, post/service "within or outside India". Neither the term "public service", nor "civil service" used in Section 15 are defined; though the term "service matter" is elaborately defined under Clause (q) to mean, in relation to a person, "all matters relating to the conditions of his service in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State..." Sub-clauses (i) etc. of Section 3(q) particularise the matters, though the residuary Sub-clause (v) speaks of "any other matter whatsoever". Clause (r) of the same Section defines the term "service rules as to redressal of grievances" to mean, "the rules, regulations, orders or other instruments or arrangments as in force for the time being with respect to redressal, otherwise than under this Act, of any grievance in relation to such matters".

5. Chapter II of the Act contemplates establishment of Tribunals and Benches thereof and of that Chapter, Section 4(2) provides for establishment of a State