JUDGMENT Amarendra Nath Verma, J. - This appeal is directed against an ad interim injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from enforcing an award made by the Labour Court in his favour against the plaintiff-respondent. 2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Ghaziabad, for a declaration that the award dated July 16, 1983 rendered by the Labour Court in favour of the appellant is illegal, wrongful and without jurisdiction. A relief for permanent prohibitory injunction was also claimed in that suit by the plaintiff restraining the appellant from implementing the said award. In the suit, an application for ad interim injunction was also moved by the plaintiff-respondent which was contested by the defendant-appellant. The learned Civil Judge, however, overruled the objection of the appellant and by the impugned order granted the ad interim injunction in terms referred to above. Aggrieved, the defendant has filed this appeal. 3. The said award was also challenged by the plaintiff-respondent by means of a Writ Petition No. 10831 of 1983 on a variety of grounds. By my judgment delivered today, the validity of the impugned award has been upheld and the petition, dismissed. As a result, it is no longer open to the plaintiff-respondent to contend that the said award is without jurisdiction or otherwise unsustainable in law. In this view of the matter this appeal has to be allowed and the impugned order granting ad interim injunction, set aside. The appeal is, however, entitled to succeed also on a more fundamental ground. Counsel for the appellant rightly contended that in view of the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 6 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act it was not permissible to the plaintiff-respondent to challenge the award once it was validly published under Section 6(3). Sub-section (5) of Section 6 provides that subject to the provisions of Section 6-A, an award published under sub-section (3) shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court in any manner whatsoever. The award in question has, in the present case, been duly published under sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the said Act. That being so, the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was clearly incompetent in law. A collateral attack on the validity of an award is not, in this scheme of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, permissible. The award in question has, in the present case, been duly published under sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the said Act. That being so, the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was clearly incompetent in law. A collateral attack on the validity of an award is not, in this scheme of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, permissible. The legislature has very emphatically barred any challenge to an award once it is validly published under Section 6 of the Act. The grant of ad interim injunction in the present case in these circumstances was hence clearly unwarranted in law and must be set aside. 4. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated July 13, 1983 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Ghaziabad, in Suit No. 265 of 1983 is set aside and the application for injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent (No. 6C-2) is dismissed. The defendant-appellant will be entitled to his costs from the plaintiff respondent both of this Court as well as of the court below.