RAKESH TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 2 ) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 13. 5. 2001 passed by the prescribed authority appointed under the Payment of Wages act, 1978/ Deputy Labour Commissioner, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh holding that the retrenchment of 10 employees is illegal, hence they are entitled a sum of Rs. 2,88,377 towards wages for the months of December, 2000 to March, 2001. Since the amount of wages exceeds rs. 50,000 hence it can be recovered under U. P. Timely Industrial Peace Act, 1987. ( 3 ) IT appears from the record that the employer is a charitable hospital. An application dated 16. 4. 2001 claiming relief of reinstatement ; retrenchment compensation and back wages was filed before the Prescribed Authority appointed under the U. P. Industrial Peace (Timely payment of Wages) Act, 1978. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner states that U. P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978 was legislated to provide timely payment of wages in respect of industrial establishments whose monthly wage bill exceeded Rs. 50,000. He submits that the appointed prescribed authority and Deputy Labour Officer appointed under the aforesaid Act has no power of adjudication under the U. P. Timely Payment of Wages Act which is vested in Labour Court under Section 4k of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. ( 5 ) IT is clear from the scheme of the U. P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978 and the U. P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Rules, 1981 that the question of legality and validity of retrenchment is beyond the jurisdiction of the Authority appointed under the Timely Payment of Wages Act, 1978. Even the claim amount pertains to seven month period, i. e. , September, 2000 to March 2001, i. e. , the wage bill of the establishment does not exceed Rs. 50,000 per month and is beyond the scope of the said Act of 1978, the Authority had no jurisdiction in the matter and has usurped and exercised powers of adjudication of Labour Court not vested in him. The impugned order of the prescribed authority is without jurisdiction and is a nullity. The consequent recovery certificates/ citation issued as a consequent of a null and void order cannot also be sustained. The impugned order of the prescribed authority is without jurisdiction and is a nullity. The consequent recovery certificates/ citation issued as a consequent of a null and void order cannot also be sustained. ( 6 ) THE counsel for the parties at this stage informs that the dispute with regard to termination/ retrenchment of the employees has already been referred by the State Government to appropriate labour Court. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order for recovery of Rs. 2,88,337 dated 13. 5. 2001 being patently illegal and without jurisdiction is quashed. No order as to costs. .