ORDER K.N. Singh, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution directed against an award of the Labour Court, Gorakhpur dated 12-10-1971 published in U.P. Gazette dated 25-12-1971. 2. M/s. A. H. Wheelers and Company Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Wheelers Distributors Pvt. Ltd. are two concerns having their offices in the same premises at 15, Elgin Road, Allahabad Most of the Directors of the two Conferences are common and the principal place of business of the two companies is also Use same. The workmen employed in the companies are members of the Union known as Wheelers Karamchari Sangh. Allahabad. It appears that the workmen of M/s. A.H. Wheelers and Company Pvt. Ltd., had raised certain demands against the employers and in that connection Wheelers Karamchari Sangh, the union of the workmen decided to strike work. In pursuance to that decision some workmen of M/s. A.H. Wheeler and Company Pvt. Ltd. went on hunger strike in November, 1967. Sri Chhedi Lal Karia, respondent No. 3, who was the workman of the other concern viz. M/s Wheelers Distributors Pvt. Ltd. served a notice on the Managing Director giving him intimation that he was going on hunger strike on the eastern gate of the company in sympathy and support of his co-worker hunger striker, namely Ashish Kumar Mukerji and others Admittedly Ashish Kumar Mukerji was an employee of M/s. A. H. Wheelers Company Pvt. Ltd. The respondent No. 3 actually went on hunger strike and he remained on hunger strike for about a month i.e. from 18-11-1967 to 16-12-1967 in the premises of the Company. 3. The employers viz. M/s. Wheelers Distributors Pvt. Ltd.. issued a charge sheet to Respondent No. 3, Chhedi Lal Karia calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service for the misconduct of striking work without giving due notice prescribed under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, The workman concerned was given notice to appear at the domestic enquiry but he did not appear. The Managing Director dismissed respondent No. 3 from service of M/s. Wheelers Distributors Pvt. Ltd. by his order dated 19-12-1967 on the findings that the petitioner had struck work which amounted to misconduct under Rule 15 (b) of the U.P. Dookan Vaniiya Adhisthan Niyamavali, 1963. The Managing Director dismissed respondent No. 3 from service of M/s. Wheelers Distributors Pvt. Ltd. by his order dated 19-12-1967 on the findings that the petitioner had struck work which amounted to misconduct under Rule 15 (b) of the U.P. Dookan Vaniiya Adhisthan Niyamavali, 1963. On a dispute raised by the workman the State Government referred the question whether the services of the respondent No. 3 had been terminated justifiably by the employers to Labour Court, Gorakhtpur for adjudication. The Labour Court by his award dated 4-9-1971 held that the dismissal of respondent No. 3 was unjustified and illegal, the Labour Court further directed the reinstatement of respondent No. 3 with full wages and allowances. The award of the Labour Court was published in the U P. Gazette dated 25-12-1971. The Wheelers Distributors thereupon filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the award. 4. The petitioner company at first challenged the validity of the order of reference on the ground that the dispute in question was not an industrial dispute, instead it was an individual dispute, hence the dispute could not be referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. It was further urged that Section 2-A of the Central Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was ultra vires. That question was referred to a larger Bench along with a number of other writ petitions. A Division Bench of this Court held that Section 2-A was valid and the State Government was competent to refer even an individual dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court in exercise of its powers under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Central). The order of reference was thus found valid. After the decision of the Division Bench the writ petition has come up for hearing before me on other questions. 5. Sri B.C. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner made another attempt to challenge the referring order of the State Government on a new ground. He urged that the State Government had no power to refer the dispute in question for adjudication under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Central Industrial Disputes Act, He urged that after the enactment of Section 4-K in the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the power of the Courts under Section 10 (1) (c) stood superseded. He urged that the State Government had no power to refer the dispute in question for adjudication under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Central Industrial Disputes Act, He urged that after the enactment of Section 4-K in the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the power of the Courts under Section 10 (1) (c) stood superseded. It is conceded that under Section 10 (1) (c) an appropriate Government is empowered to refer a dispute or any matter connected with the dispute to a Labour Court for adjudication. Section 10 (1) (c) of the Central Act was enacted in 1956 by the Industrial Disputes. (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1956. Section 4-K of the U P. Industrial Disputes Act was enacted by U.P. Act No. 1 of 1957 which conferred power on the State Government to refer any industrial dispute for adjudication to a Labour Court or Tribunal. The definition of industrial dispute as given in the U.P. Act does not include an individual dispute. The Parliament in 1965 enacted the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1965 whereby Section 2-A was inserted in the Central Act, Under that provision a dispute relating to an individual workman was deemed to be an industrial dispute for purposes of reference and adjudication with the result, the appropriate Government viz., the State Government was empowered to refer even an individual dispute for adjudication under the Central Act. 6. The question then arises whether after the enactment of Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act the State Government was divested of its powers under Section 10 (1) (c) to refer a dis mite under the Central Act for adjudication to Labour Court or Tribunal. The matter relating to the industrial and Labour disputes is the subject-matter of entry 22 of List III of VIIth Schedule of the Constitution, so the Parliament as well as the State Legislature both have legislative competence to enact laws in respect of labour disputes. The laws made by the Parliament and the State legislature on the same subject are permitted to remain in force subject to the provisions contained in clause 2 of Article 254 of the Constitution. The laws made by the Parliament and the State legislature on the same subject are permitted to remain in force subject to the provisions contained in clause 2 of Article 254 of the Constitution. The submission that once the State legislature conferred power on the State Government under the State Act, the State Government could not exercise its powers under Section 10 (1) (c) cannot be upheld because the U.P. Act does not confer any power on the State Government to refer an individual dispute for adjudication to Labour Court. Section 12 of the LI. P. Act lays down that power of the State Government to exercise its power under the Central Act shall continue unless the State Act made express provision to the contrary. It fuhrer lays down that nothing in the U.P. Act shall affect the power of the State Government to refer any industrial dispute or matters connected therewith under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central). In view of this provision, the State Act itself preserves the power of the State Government to refer an individual dispute under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Central Act for adjudication. Further the petitioner's contention must fail in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench in M/s. Har Narain Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P., (1973-27 FLR 401) : (1974 Lab IC 318) (All). 7. Sri Dey then urged that the findings of the labour Court that respondent No. 3 had not committed any misconduct and therefore he could not be dismissed from service is perverse and is in disregard of the admission of the workman himself and the Rule 15 (b) of the U.P. Dookan Aur Vanijya Adhisthan Niyamawali, 1963. The Labour Court held that the Respondent No. 3 did not attend his work as he admittedly remained on hunger strike, but as the hunger strike was not directed against the employers viz., M/s. Wheelers Distributors Pvt. Ltd., the respondent No. 3 had not committed any misconduct under Rule 15 (b) of the U.P. Dookan Aur Vanijya Adhisthan Niyamawali. 1963 The Labour Court further observed that as the workman continued to be absent from duty the employers were free to frame charges against him and to take action for his absence from duty. The Labour Court, however, observed that since no charge sheet was framed for absence from duty, the order of the dismissal was invalid. 1963 The Labour Court further observed that as the workman continued to be absent from duty the employers were free to frame charges against him and to take action for his absence from duty. The Labour Court, however, observed that since no charge sheet was framed for absence from duty, the order of the dismissal was invalid. The Labour Court misconceived facts in making that observation. A copy of the charge sheet has been filed as Annexure B to the petition, a perusal of the same shows that the allegation in charge sheet was that the respondent No. 3 had struck work on 18-11-1967. notice of which had been given to the petitioner company on that date. It further stated that the respondent's conduct of striking work without notice was misconduct for which he was liable to be punished. The Managing Director also recorded a finding that the workman had struck work, without giving any notice as required by the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and thereby he was guilty of misconduct under Rule 15 (b) of the U.P. Dookan Aur Vanijya Adhisthan Niyamawali, 1963. The Labour Court held that the workman was given reasonable opportunity at the domestic enquiry, it further upheld the employer's contention that the respondent workman had gone on hunger strike without giving notice as required by the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, After recording those findings the Labour Court held that since the strike was not directed against the employers viz. M/s. Wheelers Distributors Pvt. Ltd., and as the strike was directed against another Company namely, M/s. A.H. Wheeler & Co. Pvt. Ltd., the respondent workman could not be said to have committed any misconduct by going on hunger strike. The Labour Court was of the view that since the hunger strike of respondent No. 3 was not directed against the petitioner company, he could not be punished for the same unless his action affected the petitioner's work adversely. After making these observations the Labour Court held that the strike of the respondent workman was directed against M/s. A.H. Wheeler and Company, therefore no case for any misconduct was made out against him. 8. After making these observations the Labour Court held that the strike of the respondent workman was directed against M/s. A.H. Wheeler and Company, therefore no case for any misconduct was made out against him. 8. On the findings recorded by the Labour Court, admittedly the petitioner had gone on hunger strike without giving any notice under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, The notice dated 18-11-1967 copy of which has been filed as Annexure A itself shows that the respondent No. 3 went on hunger strike ` on the eastern gate of the Company in sympathy and support of his co-worker, A. Kumar Mukerji. The question then arises whether the workman's conduct of striking work amounted to misconduct under Rule 15 (b) of the U.P. Dookan Aur Vanijaya Adhisthan Niyamawali. 1963.; The State legislature enacted the U.P. Dookan Aur Vanijya Adhisthan Niyamawali, 1963, to consolidate and amend laws regulating the conditions of work and employment in the shops and commercial establishments of the State. Section 19 of the Adhiniyam lays down that no employee other than the employee engaged for specific period shall be discharged from service by his employer except on the ground that the post held by him has been retrenched or that he was unable to perform his duty on the ground of physical infirmity or continued ill-health. Subsection (2) of S. 19 lays down that the provisions of sub-section (1) will not apply to a case where an employee is dismissed by the employer for misconduct. Rule 15 framed by the U.P. Dookan Aur Vanijya Adhisthan Niyamawali, 1973, framed under the Adniniyam defines misconduct. Rule 15 (b) lays down that if an employee strikes work either individually or along with other employees without giving notice prescribed by any law for the time being in force, he would be guilty of misconduct and in that situation the restrictions imposed on the employer under sub-section (1) of S. 19 will not be applicable instead the employer will be free to take action for dismissal of such employee. 9. It is conceded that the provisions of the Adhiniyam and U.P. Dookan Aur Vanijya Adhisthan Niyamawali, 1963 are applicable to the present case. Rule 15 (b) does not provide any exception for striking work. It takes into account the striking of work by workman either singly or in conjunction with other employees. 9. It is conceded that the provisions of the Adhiniyam and U.P. Dookan Aur Vanijya Adhisthan Niyamawali, 1963 are applicable to the present case. Rule 15 (b) does not provide any exception for striking work. It takes into account the striking of work by workman either singly or in conjunction with other employees. Striking work has not been defined under the Adhiniyam or under the Niyamawali but the definition of the word "strike" as contained in S. 2 (v) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 means cessation of work in pursuance of a concerted act of the workman. Under the Industrial Disputes Act strike contemplates a concerted act of cessation of work by employees but Rule 15 (b) expressly lays down that striking of work even singly by an individual employee would amount to misconduct. The Adhiniyam and the Niyamawali do not require that the employee who ceased work singly without giving due notice to the employer is not guilty of any misconduct unless the cessation of work is the direct result of some in convince against the employers. When the employee ceases to do work the employer is bound to suffer adversely. It is difficult to uphold the findings of the Labour Court that unless the petitioner company proved that its interests were affected adversely, the respondent workman could not be punished for misconduct on going on strike without notice. On the admitted facts it is clear that the respondent No. 3 had struck work in an unjustifiable manner without giving due notice to the employers. He remained on strike for about a month, during all that period the employers work suffered. The petitioner Company was not required to prove any particular loss or damage. The petitioner company was bound to suffer when the respondent No. 3 ceased to perform his duties and functions. 10. The Labour Court committed a manifest error of law in holding that the strike should have been directed against the employer, only then the cessation of work could amount to a misconduct. Cessation of work for a period of one month, even if done in sympathy of some workmen of other concern was bound to affect the work of the employer. Cessation of work for a period of one month, even if done in sympathy of some workmen of other concern was bound to affect the work of the employer. The gravamen of the misconduct is not the person or authority against whom the act of striking work is directed, but the test would be whether the strike was resorted to without any notice which affected employer adversely. There can be no scope for any doubt that the continued absence of respondent No. 3 for about a month affected the petitioner's work adversely. On the findings recorded by the Labour Court itself the misconduct of striking work as contemplated by Rule 15 (b) of Niyamawali, 1963 was made out. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned award cannot be upheld. 11. In the result the petition is allowed and the impugned award of the Labour Court is quashed. The parties shall, however, bear the/ own costs.