HARI SWARUP, J.

1. This petition has been filed against the proceedings before the civil court initiated on the basis of a plaint. Respondent No. 1 filed suit No. 363 of 1971, in the court of Munsif, Hathras for the following relief:

"That the defendants being incapable and incompetent to espouse the cause and represent the workmen of the plaintiff's factory, a permanent injunction restraining them from espousing the cause of or representing the plaintiff's workmen be granted."

The plaintiff in the case is the employer and the defendants are the petitioners in this petition. During the pendency of the suit plaintiff moved an application for the grant of a temporary injunction in terms of the relief claimed in the suit. Trial Court granted the injunction and restrained the defendants from espousing the cause of the plaintiffs workmen or representing them before any tribunal or authority in any proceedings during the pendency of the suit. Defendants went up in appeal which was dismissed. Defendants then filed revision Section 115, C.P.C. which is still pending. Petitioners have filed the present petition mainly on the ground that the jurisdiction of the civil court to grant the relief was barred by the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called the Act). Petitioners have claimed a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the orders passed by learned Munsif and the learned Civil Judge in the interim matters. A writ in the nature of Mandamus is also sought to direct the company not to frustrate the hearing of certain cases pending before the Tribunal and the Labour Court.

2. The contention of the petitioners is that the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit was in effect a relief for a declaration that the defendant union had no capacity to espouse the cause of the workmen which will mean a declaration that the union could not by itself support or espouse an individual dispute or convert into an industrial dispute as contemplated by the Act. The necessary implication of granting such a relied will be a declaration to the effect that any reference made by the State Government would be a bad reference as the reference espoused by the union would not be deemed to be espoused by a competent union. The further implication will be that an industrial tribunal or a Labour Court will not be competent to proceed with such a dispute that may be referred to it by the State Government. Granting the other part of the relief regarding the representation of the plaintiff's workmen before any industrial tribunal in the matters of industrial disputes or otherwise will mean prohibiting the union to prosecute the case of the workmen before such tribunals. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that such relief could not be claimed in a civil suit as the granting of such relief would offend the provisions of Section 21 of the Act. The primary question, therefore, to be determined in this petition is whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the present suit, because if it has that jurisdiction it has jurisdiction to grant an interim relief. Section 9, C.P.C. provides:

"The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred."

Even if it be taken that the relief claimed by the plaintiff is of a civil nature the civil court will have no jurisdiction if the cognizance of such a claim is expressly or impliedly barred by some law. Section 21(2) expressly bars the jurisdiction of the civil court to consider or adjudicate upon any order that may be made in exercise of the powers conferred under the Act. The Code of Civil Procedure normally deals with cases of individual rights. It permits the filing of suits where the rights of many persons are concerned in representative capacity. The Industrial Disputes Act deals with a different class of right, i.e.