JUDGMENT M.P. Singh, J. - Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal is subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and amenable to writs of prohibition, Certiorari, Mandamus, Quowarranto or similar order or direction. Is it subordinate to the High Court? No. 2. The petitioner has prayed for issue of writ of prohibition against the Vice-Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad prohibiting the Tribunal from proceeding with Original Applications No.740/89 and 164/91 filed by the opposite parties Nos.1 and 2. 3. Facts are not much in dispute. In brief they are as follows : The petitioner was working as a Gangman under permanent way-Inspector, Northern Railway, Etawah since 1982. He filed an application, registered as a case No. 1053/87 under Section 15 of the payment of wages Act before the prescribed Authority for payment of wages from 29.3.1987 to 28.1 1.1987. 4. Opposite parties No.1 and 2 contested the same. The prescribed Authority allowed the application on 30.11.1988. It directed the contesting opposite parties to pay the deducted wages. They filed an appeal under Section 17 of the payment of wages Act before the learned District Judge. It was dismissed on 28.1.1991. The order became final. 5. The petitioner filed another application (case No.666/88) before the prescribed Authority under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. It was allowed on 11.7.1989. The opposite party No.1 was directed to pay the deducted wages along with ten times compensation. No appeal was filed against the said order. It became final. The decretal amount was not even deposited within 30 days from the date of the order as provided under Section 17. 6. Opposite parties No.1 and 2 challenged the order dated 11.7.1989 passed in case No.666/88, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Allahabad (in short 'the Tribunal'). It was registered case No.740/89. The Tribunal stayed the operation of the order dated 11.7.1989. It further directed that the amount deposited should not be paid to the petitioner. 7. They filed another case before the Tribunal against the order dated 28.1.1991 passed in appeal arising out of case No. 1053/87. The operation of the order passed by the learned District Judge was also stayed. A further direction was issued that the amount in deposit should not be paid to the petitioner. 8. 7. They filed another case before the Tribunal against the order dated 28.1.1991 passed in appeal arising out of case No. 1053/87. The operation of the order passed by the learned District Judge was also stayed. A further direction was issued that the amount in deposit should not be paid to the petitioner. 8. In both the cases the petitioner has filed his objections before the Tribunal challenging its jurisdiction. They are still pending. 9. In the meantime the petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for issue of a writ of prohibition against the Tribunal directing it not to proceed with Original Applications No.740/89 and 164/91 and a writ of Mandamus against the opposite parties No.1 and 2 not to pursue the above two cases before the Tribunal. He further prayed that the amount in deposit may be paid to him along with 12% interest. In other words he wants that the stay order granted by the Tribunal be vacated. 10. Admittedly the petitioner's objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is still pending before it. Unless the matter is finally disposed of and is decided against the petitioner, he is not justified in challenging the jurisdiction of the Tribunal before any other Court, much less in the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 11. There is no doubt that the parliament was competent to pass Act No.13 of 1985 knows as "the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in derogation of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. This power has been exercised under Article 323-A(2)(d) of the Constitution conferring competency in that behalf on parliament. The exclusion of jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in respect of matters specified in this section cannot be said to be beyond the power of the parliament. 12. Tribunals have been established in order to dispose of the cases relating to services of Central Government employees pending before various Courts. 13. Section 14 of the Act deals with the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal. 12. Tribunals have been established in order to dispose of the cases relating to services of Central Government employees pending before various Courts. 13. Section 14 of the Act deals with the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal. It has been given the exclusive jurisdiction to deal in relation to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment t"" All India Service or to any civil service of the Union or a civil post under the Union or to a post connected with defence or in the Defence services, being in either case a post filled by a civilian. In addition to that all service matters pertaining to service in connection with the affairs of the Union concerning a person appointed to any service or post referred to in sub-clause (2) or sub-clause (3) of Clause (b) being a person whose services have been placed by a State Government or any Local or other authority or any Corporation or Society or other body at the disposal of the Central Government for such appointment have been brought within its exclusive jurisdiction. 14. According to Section 28 of the Act on and from the date from which any jurisdiction, powers and authority becomes exercisable under the 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 per sons 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 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. 15. Section 28 of the Act clearly excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court including High Court over certain matters which exclusively would be governed by the Tribunal. 16. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of H.B. Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque AIR 1955 SC 233 , and Syed Yaqoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Ors., AIR 1964 SC 477 . 16. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of H.B. Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque AIR 1955 SC 233 , and Syed Yaqoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Ors., AIR 1964 SC 477 . the jurisdiction for grant of a writ of prohibition is primarily supervisory and the object of that writ is to restrain courts to inferior Tribunal from exercising a jurisdiction which they did not possess at all or else to prevent them from exceeding the limits of their jurisdiction. In other words the object is to confine the Courts or Tribunals of inferior or limited jurisdiction within their bounds. 17. It is well settled that the writ of prohibition lies not only for excess of jurisdiction, or for absence of jurisdiction, but the writ also lies because of departure from the rules of natural justice. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision reported in R.B. Shukla v. Union of India and Ors., 1991 II CLR 339 M.P.H.C.. In that case a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has issued a writ of prohibition/mandamus prohibiting the respondents from pursuing further the impugned proceedings. 19. Facts of that case in brief are as follows. The petitioner was in service of the Central Railway. He committed certain fiscal irregularities. Accordingly deduction from his salary was made. He challenged the said order under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. It was allowed. The Union of India instead of pursuing the statutory remedy of appeal took the matter to the Tribunal at Jabalpur. Notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner on receiving notice filed a writ petition in the High Court complaining about the illegal proceedings. A prayer was made to restrain them from counting with the said proceedings before the Tribunal. 20. The High Court took the view that in view of Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act the appeal lay under Section 17 of the Act. Without availing that remedy the respondents moved Central Administrative Tribunal causing unnecessary harassment to the petitioner. But the question whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was a Tribunal subordinate to the High Court has not been taken into consideration and the writ of prohibition has been issued. I do not agree with the view taken by Madhya Pradesh High Court. 21. Without availing that remedy the respondents moved Central Administrative Tribunal causing unnecessary harassment to the petitioner. But the question whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was a Tribunal subordinate to the High Court has not been taken into consideration and the writ of prohibition has been issued. I do not agree with the view taken by Madhya Pradesh High Court. 21. Another case referred to by the learned counsel is reported in the same volume Dr. H.H. Datar v. P.S. Shiv Ram General Manager, India Security press, Nasik 1991 II CLR 238. In that case while considering the scope of Section 28 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 it was held that any matter dealt with or to be dealt with by an Industrial Court, Labour Court or other authority constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or any Order under corresponding law for the time being in force would be excluded from the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. In that case the impugned order was passed by the Labour Court validly constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court took the view that the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal could only be corrected under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal was held to be excluded. 22. Both these cases are of no relevance to the point involved in the instant case. The question for consideration before this Court is whether the exclusion of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 28 of the Act and vesting of exclusive jurisdiction in the tribunal constituted under the Act is subject to an exception in favour of the jurisdiction only of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. This point has not been taken into consideration in the aforesaid decisions of Dr. H.H. Datar and R.B. Shukla (supra). But so far the proposition of law interpreting Section 28 of the Act is concerned, I respectfully agree with the same. 23. The object of the Act is to make the Tribunal as a real substitute for the High Court not only in form and 'de jure' but it content and 'de facto'. The parliament has made arrange ment for effective and efficient working of the Act. 23. The object of the Act is to make the Tribunal as a real substitute for the High Court not only in form and 'de jure' but it content and 'de facto'. The parliament has made arrange ment for effective and efficient working of the Act. The High Court is excluded of exercising its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for judicial review in service matters. Reference may be made to a Supreme Court case reported in S.P. Sampat Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. 1987 (1) SCC 124 . 24. Can the High Court, although barred to entertain writ petitions in service matters of the Central Government employees, entertain a writ petition against the Tribunal itself? Certainly not. If the order of the Tribunal suffers from any manifest error of law or jurisdiction, the High Court will have no jurisdiction to issue any writ against such decisions. No writ of prohibition can be issued against a Tribunal against its entertaining a claim which is not entertain able by it. 25. I am of the view that the Central Administrative Tribunal is not subordinate to the High Court nor is a Tribunal inferior to it. So this Court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition or any other writ against it. If the objection regarding the jurisdiction is decided by the Tribunal against the petitioner, he will have a right of approaching the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 26. Accordingly I find no merit in this writ petition. It is dismissed in limine. 27. Petition is dismissed in limine.