Ms. Sananda Bhandare, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition challenges the order ofthe Delhi Administration No. F. 24 (240/70-Lab-2l503 dated 23-7-1970 whereby the Delhi Administration referred for adjudication to the Labourcourt the following term of reference : "whether the refusal to duties to Shri Tarseem Lal is illegal and/orunjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directionsare necessary in this respect ?" ( 2 ) THE Labour Court proceeded to adjudicate the dispute and framed the following two issues : "1. Whether there exists no industrial dispute between the partiesand if so, the reference is bad in law ? 2. As in the term of reference. " ( 3 ) AS regards issue No. 1 the learned representative of the Managementmade a statement on 14-9-1971 before the Labour Court that he did notpress the objection covered by this issue and, therefore, the first issue wasdecided against the management. The Labour Court thereafter dealt withthe facts of the case in detail and after considering the entire evidence andcircumstances, made an award directing the petitioner that the respondent betaken in service with full continuity in service. As regards back wages adirection was made that the respondent be paid half wages with effect from16-6-1969 till he resumes duty. It is also prayed in this petition that thisaward of the labour court be quashed. ( 4 ) THIS case is shown in the list for the last 3 days but no one hasappeared for the petitioner. The main ground in the petition before thiscourt is that the order of reference made by the third respondent was inexcess of powers and was ultravires Sections 7 and 10 of the Industrialdisputes Act and IInd schedule thereto. ( 5 ) MR. A S. Vir, Advocate appearing for the respondent has submittedthat the reference is covered by the second schedule to the Industrial Disputesact Counsel submitted that refusing to give work amount to dismissaland, therefore, it is covered by item No. 3 of the lind schedule. Counselhas also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tulsidas Paul v. Second Labour Court West Bengal and Others, 1971 (Vol. 39) F. J. R. 265. In this judgment reference has been made to the judgment of the Calcuttahigh Court where it was held that refusal to give work amounts todismissal. Counselhas also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tulsidas Paul v. Second Labour Court West Bengal and Others, 1971 (Vol. 39) F. J. R. 265. In this judgment reference has been made to the judgment of the Calcuttahigh Court where it was held that refusal to give work amounts todismissal. ( 6 ) UNDER Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the appropriategovernment can by a notification in the official gazette constitute a labour courtfor adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter specified inthe second schedule. Under Section 10 a dispute or any matter appearing tobe connected with or relevant to the dispute, if it relates to any matterspecified in the second schedule, can be referred for adjudication to thelabour court. The second schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, deals withthe matters within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. Item No. 3 of thesecond schedule reads as : "3. Discharge or dismissmal of workmen including reinstatementof or grant of relief to, workmen wrongfully dismissed. " ( 7 ) APART from item No. 3 the Labour Court has jurisdiction in respectof all matters other than those specified in the third schedule. The questionof refusal to give work would not be covered by the third schedule. It iswell settled that refusal to give work amounts to dismissal. It would be,therefore, covered by item No. 3 of the second schedule. In any event itemno. 6 of the second schedule is so wide that when the dispute is not coveredby the third schedule, it would be covered by item No. 6. Moreover,issue No. 1 framed by the Labour Court namely ; whether thereference would be bad in law since no industrial disputes existed between theparties was specifically given up by the management before the Labour Court. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the Labour Court had the jurisdictionto deal with the dispute in reference. The notification is, therefore, validand not ultra-vires sections 7 and 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. ( 8 ) IN exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitutionof India, the High Court does not sit in appeal over the orders of the Labourcourt. The jurisdiction is supervisory and, therefore, when a reasoned awardis given, unless the petitioner is able to show that there is lack of jurisdiction,this court would not normally interfere. ( 8 ) IN exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitutionof India, the High Court does not sit in appeal over the orders of the Labourcourt. The jurisdiction is supervisory and, therefore, when a reasoned awardis given, unless the petitioner is able to show that there is lack of jurisdiction,this court would not normally interfere. Since the order of reference madeby the Delhi Administration is valid and the award of the Labour Court doesnot suffer from lack of Jurisdiction. The petition has to be dismissed. Nocosts.