JUDGMENT Hari Swarup. J. - This petition has been filed against the award of the Industrial Tribunal. The following dispute was referred to the Tribunal under S. 4K of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act: (Matter in Hindi not printed) In Para. 5 of his written statement the employer took objection to the validity of the reference itself. The Tribunal on the basis of this plea framed an issue in the case, which it termed as "exploratory issue" in the following form : " Whether there has been no relationship of master and servant between Shining Tailors, Faizabad, and the persons mentioned in the annexure to the order of reference for reasons mentioned in Para. 3 of the employer's written statement ?" 2. The Tribunal considered the evidence led by the parties and recorded a finding that because the workmen were working on the basis of piece-rate wages and were free to take employment either under one master or the other they were not employees of the respondent-employer. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that this view is contrary to the established position of law. According to him the piece-rate workers are also workers of the particular employer for whom they work and entitled to the benefits of the Industrial Disputes Act. In support of his contention he has referred to Hussain Bhai v. Alith Factory Thozhilali Union and others, (1978-II L. L. N. 276) and Whiteway Dresses, Madras v. Additional Labour Court, Madras, and another, (1978-11 L. L. N. 314). These cases, prima facie support the petitioners' case. 3. It is also contended that the Tribunal was in error in not summoning necessary evidence and making the local inspect on before arriving at the conclusions, and erred in not considering the fact that the workmen worked even at the establishment of the concerned employer. 4. The Tribunal has recorded a finding, believing the statement of the employer that there was no lockout. This finding of the Tribunal has also been challenged on merits by the learned counsel for the applicant. It is contended that it has been arrived at without consideration of the employees' evidence. 5. 4. The Tribunal has recorded a finding, believing the statement of the employer that there was no lockout. This finding of the Tribunal has also been challenged on merits by the learned counsel for the applicant. It is contended that it has been arrived at without consideration of the employees' evidence. 5. It is not necessary in this case for us to go into the merits of the various contentions raised by the petitioners as in our opinion the Tribunal has travelled beyond its jurisdiction in recording the findings that there was no lockout and the relationship of the employer and employee did not exist. The question referred to the Tribunal was only about the propriety and legality of the lockout and in case it was found that the lockout and consequent keeping away the workmen were not justified then about the relief to which the workmen were entitled. The question whether there was a lockout or that the relationship of employer and employee existed was not open to decision by the Tribunal. In Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat v. Perfect Pottery Company, Ltd. and others, (1979-I L. L N. 336), the Supreme Court observed in Para. 11, at page 338: " Having heard a closely thought out argument made by Sri Gupta, on behalf of the appellant, we are of the opinion that the High Court is right in its view on the first question. The very terms of the references show that the point of dispute between the parties was not the fact of closure of its business by the respondent but the propriety and justification of the respondent's decision to close down the business. That is why the references were expressed to say whether the proposed closure of the business was proper and justified. In other words, by the references, the Tribunals were not called upon by the Government to adjudicate upon the question as to whether there was in fact a closure of business or whether under the pretence of closing the business the workers were locked out by the management. The references being limited to the narrow question as to whether the closure was proper and justified, the Tribunals by the very terms of the references, had no jurisdiction to go behind the fact of closure and inquire into the question whether the business was in fact closed down by the management." 6. The references being limited to the narrow question as to whether the closure was proper and justified, the Tribunals by the very terms of the references, had no jurisdiction to go behind the fact of closure and inquire into the question whether the business was in fact closed down by the management." 6. The learned counsel for the employer drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Express Newspapers (Private), Ltd., Madras v. Workers and others, (A. I. R. 1963 S. C. 569), This case was considered in Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat v. Perfect Pottery Company, Ltd., [1979-I L. L. N. 336], (vide supra), and the distinction was pointed out. This distinction exists even in the present case. The case before us is parallel to the case which went before the Supreme Court in Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat v. Perfect Pottery Company, Ltd. (vide supra), and the law laid down therein is applicable to the present case. The Tribunal must, therefore, be held to have exceeded its jurisdiction. 7. The Tribunal is the creature of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, its powers are circumscribed by the statute. Where the statute assigns different duties to different authorities, they cannot transgress the jurisdiction of each other. Section 4K of the Act provides :- "4K. Where the State Government is of opinion that any Industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time by order in writing refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute to a Labour Court if the matter of industrial dispute is one of those contained in the First Schedule or to a Tribunal if the matter of dispute is one contained in the First Schedule or the Second Schedule for adjudication: Provided that where the dispute relates to any matters specified in the Second Schedule and is not liable to affect more than one hundred workmen, the State Government may, if it so thinks fit, make the reference to a Labour Court." 8. This provision gives the right to the State Government to determine whether an industrial dispute exists and to refer it to the Tribunal for adjudication if it is such which falls within the ambit of the schedule. The opinion of the State Government is final. This provision gives the right to the State Government to determine whether an industrial dispute exists and to refer it to the Tribunal for adjudication if it is such which falls within the ambit of the schedule. The opinion of the State Government is final. The Tribunal has no power to hold that the reference was bad because the Government's opinion about the existence of lockout was erroneous or that there existed no relation. ship of employer and employee between the parties to the reference. It would amount to sitting in appeal over the opinion of the State Government that there existed an industrial dispute between the parties. Unless such a question is referred to the Tribunal it would have no jurisdiction to frame an "exploratory" issue and reject the reference on the uncalled for "exploration" made by it. it has no power to go on expedition or exploration. 9. The Tribunal fell in error in deciding matters which were not within its competence to decide and failed to decide the dispute or issue it was required to decide. 10. In the result, the petition is allowed. The award of the Tribunal is quashed and it is directed to restore the case and decide it in accordance with law. Under the circumstances of the case parties will bear their own costs.