JUDGMENT H. Swarup, J. - The Ganesh Sugar Mills Ltd. has filed this petition against the award given by the Labour Court, Lucknow. 2. The matter referred to the Labour Court was on the following terms; "Should the employers be required to classify the workman, Sri Shyam Behari Lal, son of Sri Uma Prasad Lal as Electrician in skilled A grade and place him in the pay scale appropriate to such classification in terms of the U. P. Government Notification No. 2309(ST)XXXVIA-273 (ST)/60 dated April 27, 1961, as amended and extended to date? If so, with effect from which date and with what other details?" 3. The Labour Court held that the workman Shyam Behari Lal, opposite party No. 1, did not possess necessary knowledge and proficiency required for being designated as Electrician. The answer to the dispute, therefore should have been in the negative. The Labour Court, however, proceeded further to consider whether the workman was entitled to be placed in Wireman Grade I as he was working as Wireman Grade II. By Grades I and II, probably the Court meant skilled B grade and skilled C grade as contemplated by the Government Order passed under Section 3 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act to give effect to the recommendation of the Wage Board set up for the Sugar Industries in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Labour Court found that the duties to be performed both by Wireman of skilled B grade and of skilled C grade were similar and hence gave the award directing the workman to be placed in grade 'skilled B' on the finding that he was a senior workman and no evidence had been led by the employer to show that he was not proficient. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Labour Court has gone beyond the scope of reference and the finding about the proficiency and seniority of the workman was given without the petitioner having received any opportunity to meet the points. There is force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court was confined to the determination as to whether the workman should be classified as an Electrician in skilled A grade. There is force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court was confined to the determination as to whether the workman should be classified as an Electrician in skilled A grade. It was only when the Labour Court found that he was entitled to be placed in that classification that the Labour Court could give an award regarding other details. After having found that the workman was not entitled to be classified as Electrician the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to proceed further and determine about a different classification and the grade in which the workman was entitled to be placed. 6. The pleadings of the parties also did not show that any case was put up by the workman before the Labour Court that he was entitled to be placed in 'skilled B grade of Wireman'. No evidence was required to be led on this point and the Labour Court was in error in drawing an inference against the petitioner from the circumstance that the Electrical Engineer and the Electrician were not examined as witnesses in the case to^ speak about the proficiency of the workman. As the point was not before the Labour Court, it had no jurisdiction to give any award about the classification of the workman in skilled B grade of Wireman. 7. The petition is accordingly allowed and the award of the Labour Court is quashed and it is directed to give the award in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case the parties will bear their own costs.