Judgment N. P. Singh, Vishwanath Mishra, JJ. 1. The petitioner in this writ application has made a prayer for quashing an award, dated 23rd June, 1975 given by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna, which was published on 22nd July, 1975, a copy whereof is annexure 1 to the writ application. It appears that by a notification dated 16th February, 1972 the State Government, which was the appropriate Government within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) referred the dispute in question to the labour Court at Muzaffarpur. The dispute, which was referred, was as to whether the dismissal of Kedar Nath Prasad by the petitioner-Company was justified, if not whether he was entitled to reinstatement or to any other relief. Both, parties filed their written statement before the Labour Court at Muzaffarpur and witnesses were also examined on their behalf. When the arguments were being heard, a petition was filed before the State Government by the aforesaid workmen making a prayer to transfer the reference, which was pending before the labour Court, Muzaffarpur, to any other Labour Court. On the basis of the petition being filed, in purported exercise of the power conferred on the appropriate government under sub-section (1) of section 33-B of the Act the State government, by notification dated 24th July, 1974, withdrew the proceeding which was pending before the Labour Court, Muzaffarpur, in respect of the dispute aforesaid and transferred the same to the Labour Court at Patna. A copy of that notification is annexure 5 to the writ application. The respondent presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna, heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and gave the impugned award holding that the dismissal of the concerned, workman was not justified. He also ordered his reinstatement with all back wages. The validity of that award has been questioned in this writ application on several grounds including that the order of transfer itself being illegal, the respondent Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna, could not have given the award in question. 2. The Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at first challenged award only on the ground that the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna, had no jurisdiction to the award in question. In this connection, the learned Counsel referred to sub-section (1) of section 33-B of the Act. 2. The Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at first challenged award only on the ground that the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna, had no jurisdiction to the award in question. In this connection, the learned Counsel referred to sub-section (1) of section 33-B of the Act. This sub-section vests power in the appropriate Government to withdraw any proceeding which is pending before any Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, after recording reasons for doing the same. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, while exercising the power under sub-section (1) of section 33-B the State Government has recorded no reason whatsoever and as such there has been non-compliance with the provision aforesaid which shall render the award given by the Labour Court at Patna invalid. From a bare reference to the notification dated 24th July, 1974 (annexure 5) it appears that no specific reason has been given for transfer. It simply says that the State government has considered the representation of Shri Kedar Nath Prasad and it was satisfied that the aforesaid dispute relating to his dismissal should be transferred to the Labour Court, Patna. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of the contention, has placed reliance on a Supreme court judgment in the case of Associated Electrical Industries (India) Private ltd. V/s. Its Workmen, ( AIR 1967 SC 284 ) as well as the cases of Shree Shew sakti Oil Mills Ltd. V/s. Second Industrial Tribunal, (1959) 2 LU 603), and hindustan Lever Ltd. y. The Government qf U. P. , (1968 LIC 804 ). These cases have taken the view that power under section 33-B can be exercised only after recording reasons for the same, otherwise the Labour Courts to which the reference was originally made, should decide the dispute finally. In the case of. Associated Electrical Industries, (supra), it was observed : "normally, when an industrial dispute is referred to an industrial court or tribunal, it should be tried before the said court or tribunal, and so the power of transfer can be exercised only for sufficient reasons. In the circumstances of this case we are not prepared to hold that any reasons have been stated as required by the section, and so the orders of transfers cannot be held to be justified under section 33-B (1 ). In the circumstances of this case we are not prepared to hold that any reasons have been stated as required by the section, and so the orders of transfers cannot be held to be justified under section 33-B (1 ). " Learned counsel appearing for the respondent workman, however, urged that the petitioner should not be allowed to urge this point after it has taken a change before the Labour Court of Patna and the award has been given against it. According to him, there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction in the Labour court of Patna, as such once the petitioner did not object at the time when the case was taken up for hearing, it cannot challenge the award on this ground after the view has been taken against it. No doubt, this is a question which needs detailed consideration. It is well settled that, if an award or order has been passed or made by a body or an authority which has no jurisdiction to pass the same then consent cannot vest jurisdiction so as to validate such orders or awards. But there may bo cases where, the party concerned having not challenged the jurisdiction at earlier stage is debarred from challenging the final order passed by such authority or body on that ground. But in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Associated Electrical Industries (supra), we think, it is no more open to the respondent workman to urge that the award now cannot be set aside on the ground aforesaid. From the judgment of the Supreme Court it appears that in that case also award had been given and the point of contravention of section 33-B (I) was taken later and on that ground even the award as set asile. It was pointed out on behalf of the respondent workman that in the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme court this aspect of the matter has not been considered. It is true that whether a petitioner should be allowed to urge this point after he has participated in the proceeding before the Labour Court to which the case has been transferred was not urged before the Supreme Court on behalf of the concerned workmen. It is true that whether a petitioner should be allowed to urge this point after he has participated in the proceeding before the Labour Court to which the case has been transferred was not urged before the Supreme Court on behalf of the concerned workmen. But, when the Supreme Court took the view that the award was invalid on that ground itself, it will be deemed that this aspect of the matter has also been taken note of. 3 Accordingly, we allow this writ application and quash the order transferring the case from the Labour Court, Muzaffarpur, to the Labour Court, patna (annexure 5) as well as the award (annexure 1 ). Both parties have agreed that the reference case should be heard by the Labour Court, Muzaffarpur, at any early date and should be disposed of as early as possible. The respondent presiding Officer, Labour Court of Patna, shall transmit the records of the case to the Labour Court, Muzaffarpur, within a week from the receipt of the order of this Court. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Muzaffarpur, shall try to dispose of the case within two months from the receipt of the record from patna. , It is made clear that, unless the reasons are compelling, no adjournment should be allowed to the parties. It is also made clear that the case has to be decided on the materials already on the record, no further evidence shall be adduced on behalf of either party. There will no order as to costs. Application allowed.