( 1 ) THE respondent 2, Bharat Singh was an employee of the petitioner, the Lord Krishna Sugar mills, Limited, Saharanpur (hereinafter referred to as the mills ). Finding him guilty of misconduct, the management of the mills dismissed him with effect from 27 November 1958. The conciliation proceedings started in this connexion proved to be infructuous and the regional conciliation officer reported to the State Government accordingly. The Government did not make a reference under Section 4k of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act (herein below referred to as the Act) and apparently closed the file. The respondent 2, however, made an application to the labour court, Meerut, on 21 October 1959, purporting to be under Section 11c of the Act praying that the charge-sheet on the basis of which the petitioner was dismissed. the order suspending him, dated 21 November 1958 and the one dismissing him from service, dated 2 december 1958, be set aside. On this application, notice was issued to the mills which raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the labour court (respondent 1) had no jurisdiction to inquire into the matter. Overruling the preliminary objection and after going into the merits of the application, respondent 1 by an order, dated 12 May 1960, held that the order of dismissal was illegal and without jurisdiction and that respondent 2 continued to be In service and was entitled to his wages from 27 November 1958 onwards. It is against that order that/the present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that it be quashed and a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondent not to have the order, dated 12 May 1960, enforced against the petitioners.

( 2 ) ONLY one submission has been made on behalf of the petitioners and that la that the order passed by respondent 1 is without jurisdiction as it Is beyond the scope of the powers conferred on a labour court by Section 11c of the Act. Section 11c along with some other provisions was brought on the statute book by Section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1956 (Uttar Pradesh Act I of 1967 ). It reads as follows: section 11c.--lf any question arises as to the application or interpretation of a standing order certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1945, any employer or workman may refer the Question to anyone of the labour courts specified for the disposal of such proceedings by the State Government by notification in the official Gazette, and the labour court, to which the question is so referred, shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, decide the question and such decision shall be final and binding on the parties.

( 3 ) IT will contribute to a correct determination of the scope of Section 11c If it were mentioned at the outset that this provision is very similar to Section 13a of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act ). That provision reads as follows: section 13a.--If any question as to the application or interpretation of a standing order certified under this Act, any employer or workman may refer the question to anyone of the labour courts constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and specified for the disposal of such proceeding by the appropriate Government by notification in the official Gazette, and the labour court to which the question is so referred shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, decide the Question and such decision shall be final and binding on the parties.

( 4 ) SO far as the State laws are concerned, there is no Act similar to the Central Act. The Uttar pradesh legislature, therefore, introduced in substance the provisions of Section 13a of the central Act in our Act by means of Section 11c. Section 13a of the Central Act has never been held to be applicable for deciding industrial disputes. The long title of the Central