JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has assailed the award passed by the Lok Adalat in this writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Shesh Kumar Srivastava submits that the award is beyond jurisdiction. The Utter Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable to the facts of this case. He relies on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. Vs. Addl. Labour Commissioner and others, 2007 (11) SCC 756, and the judgment of this Court rendered in Sikta Mahoogarh Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs. Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and others, (2014) 4 UPLBEC 3246.

3. Shri Saroj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the respondent no.5 is a workman within the meaning of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4. The facts material to the adjudication of this case lie in a narrow compass and are undisputed.

5. The respondent no. 5 was appointed as Class IV employee in the petitioner Institution. The petitioner Institution is an intermediate college which is under the grant-in-aid of the Government of U.P. The conditions of service and payment of salary of all employees and staff of the Institution including the petitioner are governed and regulated by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as well as the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other employees) Act, 1971.

6. The aforesaid enactments are a complete code. The enactments are special legislations covering a specific field of law.

7. I see merit in the contention of Shri Shesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners that the labour court exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining the industrial dispute even though its jurisdiction was ousted by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other employees) Act, 1971.

8. The ouster of jurisdiction of the labour court and the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in matters governed by special laws fell for consideration in Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank (supra).

9. The issue in Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank (supra) was whether the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, being a special enactment ousted the jurisdiction of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in matters covered by the former enactment. Invoking the well settled principles of interpretation of statues which contemplate that a special Act shall prevail over a general Act was held:

“61. The general legal principle in interpretation of statutes is that “the general Act should lead to the special Act”. Upon this general principle of law, the intention of the U.P. Legislature is clear, that the special enactment U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 alone should apply in the matter of employment by cooperative societies to the exclusion of all other labour laws. It is a complete code in itself as regards employment in cooperative societies and its machinery and provisions. The general Act, the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as a whole has and can have no applicability and stands excluded after the enforcement of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act. This is also clear from necessary implication that the legislature could not have intended head-on conflict and collision between authorities under different Acts."

10. The narrative in Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank (supra) placed reliance on the judgment rendered in Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. and others Vs. The Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh and others, 1969 (2) SCC 43, wherein it was observed:

“7. Applying these tests, we have no doubt at all that the dispute covered by the first issue referred to the Industrial Tribunal in the present cases could not possibly be referred for decision to the Registrar under Section 61 of the Act. The dispute related to alteration of a number of conditions of service of the workmen which relief could only be granted by a