ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Shri Samir Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 2 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 23. 3. 1987 passed by presiding Officer, Labour Court in Misc. Case No. 3/87, staying the suspension and disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner in a proceedings under Section 11-C of the U. P. Industrial dispute Act, 1947. ( 3 ) THE Counsel for the petitioner challenging the said order contended that in proceedings under section 11-C of the U. P. Industrial Act 1947, there is no power to grant an interim order of the nature as granted by the Labour Court. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Labour Court has wrongly relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in 1986 (53) FLR 602, for holding that such interim order can be granted. ( 5 ) I have considered the submissions and perused the record, Brief facts necessary for deciding the controversy raised in the writ petition are : the respondent No. 3, Workman moved an application on 21. 3. 1987 under Section 11-C of the u. P. Industrial Act with a prayer to interpret the Standing Order as to whether the Officer who had issued suspension order of the workman was competent to pass such order and as to whether the misconduct pointed out in the suspension order are covered by the clause of Paragraph-22 of the Model Standing Order. In the said application an application for interim prayer was also made praying for staying the suspension order and disciplinary proceeding. The Presiding officer, Labour Court relying on the judgment of Bombay High Court in Deepak Industries v. Engineering and Metal Workers Union and Ors. 1986 (53) FLR 602, granted interim order. ( 6 ) THE question which are arisen for consideration in the present case is as to whether in proceeding under Section 11-C of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, Labour Court has power to pass an interim order. Section 11-C of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is extracted below: "11-C. Interpretation, etc. ( 6 ) THE question which are arisen for consideration in the present case is as to whether in proceeding under Section 11-C of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, Labour Court has power to pass an interim order. Section 11-C of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is extracted below: "11-C. Interpretation, etc. of Standing Orders.--If any question arises as to the application or interpretation of a Standing Order certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)Act, 1946, any employer or workman may refer the question to any one of the Labour Courts specified for the disposal of such proceeding by the State Government by notification in the official Gazette, and the Labour Court to which the question is so referred shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, decide the question and such decision shall be final and binding on the parties. " ( 7 ) SIMILAR provisions are also contained in Section 13-A of the Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act, 1946 which is extracted below: "13-A. Interpretation, etc. of Standing Orders.--If any question arises as to the application or interpretation of a Standing Order certified under this Act, any employer or workman (or a trade union or other representative body of the workmen) may refer the question to any one of the labour Courts constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; and specified for the disposal of such proceedings by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette, and the Labour Court to which the question is so referred shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, decide the question and such decision shall be final and binding on the parties. " ( 8 ) THE jurisdiction given to Labour Court under Section 11-C is for a definite purpose i. e. if any question arises as to the application or interpretation of a Standing Order certified under the industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, any employer or workman may refer to the question to any one of the Labour Court specified for the purpose. The Labour Court after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, decide the question. Section 13-A which is the provision pari-materia came for consideration before the Gujarat High Court in AIR 1964 gujarat 265, Tata Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. v. Kailash C. Adhvaryu. The Labour Court after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, decide the question. Section 13-A which is the provision pari-materia came for consideration before the Gujarat High Court in AIR 1964 gujarat 265, Tata Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. v. Kailash C. Adhvaryu. ( 9 ) IN the said judgment the Gujarat High Court took the view that Section 13-A provides only for reference of a question as to the application or interpretation of the Standing Order. The function of the Labour Court is limited only to the decision of the question as to the application or interpretation of the Standing Order. The Labour Court is not invested with the power to grant relief in enforcement of the rights and liabilities created by the Standing Orders. ( 10 ) AGAIN the Gujarat High Court in 1993 (66) FLR 706, Amini Jonh and Barofarn Chemicals ltd. , relying on the judgment in Tata Chemicals Ltd. , took the view that under Section 13-A while considering the question of interpretation of Standing Order, the Labour Court cannot grant a relief. The application for interim relief was rejected in that case which order was challenged before the High Court. The High Court took the view that the Labour Court was deciding a proceeding under Section 13-A which is of limited jurisdiction and no error was committed by Labour Court in refusing the relief. ( 11 ) THE judgment of the Bombay High Court which has been relied by the Labour Court for passing the impugned order was under different Act, namely, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the aforesaid Act specifically empowered the Court to grant an interim relief. Section 30 (2) which is relevant for the present purpose is quoted below: " (2) In any proceeding before it under this Act, the Court may pass such interim order (including any temporary relief or restraining order) as it deems just and proper (including direction to the person to withdraw temporarily the practice complained of, which is an issue in such proceeding), pending final decision. " ( 12 ) THE judgment of the Bombay High Court, which has been relied by the Labour Court, is not applicable in the facts of the present case. " ( 12 ) THE judgment of the Bombay High Court, which has been relied by the Labour Court, is not applicable in the facts of the present case. In the aforesaid case there was specific provision empowering the Labour Court to grant interim order whereas in Section 11-C there is no provision of such power nor any such power can be even impliedly read. The proceedings under section 11-C are basically for interpretation of Standing Order and object and purpose of the said section is entirely different. The said proceedings are not for enforcement of rights of a workman under the Standing Order. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner has substance that the Labour Court in proceeding under Section 11-C has no jurisdiction to pass an interim order. ( 13 ) IN view of foregoing discussion the impugned order passed by Labour Court dated 23. 3. 1987 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. ( 14 ) THE writ petition is allowed accordingly. . .