A Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to direct payment of wages even under an award.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is a public limited company which runs a sugar factory at Meerut. In December, 1955 some of the workmen of the factory raised certain demands. The demands not having been met, they decided to launch direct action by adopting go slow policy. The petitioner-company served charge-sheets on 63 workmen for having resorted to go slow action, On enquiry they were all found guilty. The petitioner-company (hereafter moved an application before the Additional Regional Conciliation Officer for permission to dismiss them. The Additional Regional Conciliation Officer granted the permission for the dismissal of 11 workmen but refused permission in respect of the remaining 52 workmen. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Labour Tribunal. The appeal was rejected on the ground that it was not maintainable. The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also held that the appeal was not maintainable as the conciliation officer was not a Tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioner-company preferred a writ petition No, 3047 of 1962 in this Court. The writ petition was allowed and as a result the petitioner dismissed the workmen in respect of whom permission had been refused by the conciliation officer. The petitioners then application for approval before the Labour Court under Section 6e (2) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The permission was granted. The workmen thereupon filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 115 of 14 in this 1964 Court against the order of the Labour Court. That petition was dismissed. After a period at about 8 years on February 5, 1964 the State Government referred the following dispute under Section 4k of the Act to the Labour Court, Meerut: Whether the employers have terminated the services of the workmen, named in the annexure with effect from January 14, 1963, legally and/or justifiiably? If not, to what relief are the workmen concerned entitled?

( 2 ) THE reference is now pending before the Labour Court, Meerut. The workmen moved an application dated December 20, 1965 before the Labour Court, Lucknow/meerut praying that with a view to mitigating the suffering of the poor workmen the Court may allow some interim relief and may make an interim award. This application also remained pending for about 5 years. In October, 1970 the workmen once again pursued the application. The petitioner moved an application before the Labour Court requesting that the final hearing of the case may be fixed at an early date so that it may not be necessary for the Labour Court to make an interim award or grant an interim relief. The said application was heard by the Labour Court on October, 22, 1971 when the Labour Court directed the petitioner to deposit half of the wages due to the workmen concerned from time to time according to the Government orders binding on the employers from December 21, 1965 onwards in Court. The amount, however, was not to be paid until the main case was disposed of. It was further directed that if the amount was not so deposited within three weeks immediate steps would be taken to recover it as arrears of land revenue. The petitioner is aggrieved and has challenged the order in this Court.

( 3 ) IN my opinion, the Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. A Court or a Tribunal can, by an interim, order, grant such relief as it is competent to grant on the passing of the final order. Payment of money to a party to a labour dispute cannot be awarded by a Labour Court. When it decides a labour dispute its jurisdiction more or less is of advisory in nature inasmuch as the award given by it is not enforceable as such but it becomes enforceable only after the State Government publishes it in the Gazette and before the State Government makes the award enforceable it has the jurisdiction to remit it for reconsideration, to postpone its enforcement and also in certain cases to rescind or to modify it. This is clear from the