JUDGMENT :

1. RULE. Learned advocate Mr.D.G.Shukla waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.

2. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave for learned advocate Mr.Ajay L. Pandav for the petitioner has submitted that the present writ petition would not be maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 4 of the Industrial Dispute (Banking and Insurance) Companies Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’). He has submitted that it is not in dispute that the present petitioner is an Insurance Company and falls within the definition under Section 2 and hence, Section 4 of the Act bars the State Government or any officer or any authority subordinate to such Government to refer an industrial dispute. Thus, he has submitted that the entire proceedings are nullity and hence, the impugned award is required to be set aside.

3. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.D.G.Shukla has submitted that no such contention was raised before the court below and hence, the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, has precisely passed the award in favour of the workman. Further, it has submitted that in view of the Section 6 of the Act, the Court can still remand the matter to the Central Industrial