JUDGMENT Hon’ble Bala Krishna Narayana, J.—Heard Sri Shakti Swarup Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G. Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners against the award dated 24.12.2007 passed by the respondent No. 1 in Adjudication Case No. 275 of 1999 and published on 1st April, 2008. 3. The brief facts of this case are that the respondent No. 2 Munraj Singh invoked the power of the State Government under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Act) raising an industrial dispute challenging the termination of his service by the respondent No. 1 by his order dated 1.10.1998 on the ground that the said order was passed without complying with the mandatory requirements stipulated under Section 6N of the U.P. Act, although the respondent No. 2 had worked as salesman in the establishment of the petitioner for more than 240 days. The said dispute was referred to the respondent No. 1 by the State Govt. vide its order dated 22.11.1999 and registered as Adjudication Case No. 275 of 1999. Upon being noticed the petitioners appeared before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I) at Kanpur and filed their written statement opposing the claim of the respondent No. 2. Apart from filing their written statement the petitioners had adduced voluminous evidence before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I) at Kanpur which has been appended to this writ petition compositely as annexure No. 2 which demonstrates that the respondent No. 2 was not working as salesman as alleged by him in his written statement but was in fact employed in the petitioners’ establishment as hawker. The petitioners had further raised a preliminary objection before the respondent No. 1 challenging the power of the State Govt. The petitioners had further raised a preliminary objection before the respondent No. 1 challenging the power of the State Govt. to refer the dispute under Section 4K of the U.P.Act and the competency and jurisdiction of the respondent No. 1 to entertain the adjudication case in view of the provisions of Section 3 of The Working Journalist and Another Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 (45 of 1955), (hereinafter referred to as the Act 45 of 1955) which provide that the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (14 of 1947), as in force for the time being, shall, subject to the modifications specified in sub-section 2, apply to, or in relation to, working journalists as they apply to, or in relation to workmen within the meaning of that Act, and hence in this view of the matter the Central Govt. alone was competent to refer the dispute in hand and that to, to a tribunal or a labour Court constituted under the Central Act. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent No. 1 despite taking notice of the jurisdictional objection raised by the petitioners before him neither adjudicated the same and nor he recorded any finding thereon even though from the voluminous evidence which was adduced by the petitioners before him it was comprehensively established that the respondent No. 2 was employed in the petitioners’ establishment as a hawker and illegally held the termination of employment of the respondent No. 2 by the petitioners to be illegal and in this view of the matter the impugned award which is wholly without jurisdiction cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, Sri G. Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-workman vehemently submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting any interference by this Court. 6. After having very carefully examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award as well as the other materials brought on record, I find that there is force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and the same are liable to be accepted. The respondent No. 2 moved the State Govt. The respondent No. 2 moved the State Govt. under Section 4K of the U.P. Act claiming himself to be working as salesman in the petitioners’ establishment challenging the termination of his employment by the petitioners vide order dated 1.10.1998 on the ground that the same infringed the provisions of Section 6N of the U.P. Act. 7. From perusal of the written statement filed by the petitioners before the respondent No. 1 it transpires that the petitioners had challenged the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 1 to entertain and decide the adjudication case in view of Section 3 of the Act 45 of 1955 which stipulates that the central Government alone is competent to refer a dispute between the employers and the employees of a establishment to which the provisions of the Act 45 of 1955 apply and that to, to a tribunal constituted under the central Act. From the perusal of the written statement filed by the petitioners before the respondent No. 2 it appears that before the respondent No. 1 the petitioners had taken a specific plea that the respondent No. 2 was employed in their establishment as a hawker and not as a salesman. In support of their contention they had filed voluminous evidence which has been compositely annexed as annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. 8. I have very carefully gone through the impugned award and I do not find therein any adjudication by the respondent No. 1 on the preliminary objection raised before him by the petitioners regarding his lack of jurisdiction to entertain and decide the adjudication case on account of the reference made to him by the State Govt. under Section 4K of the U.P. Act being without jurisdiction in view of Section 3 of the Act 45 of 1955 on account of respondent No. 2 being employed as a hawker in the petitioners’ establishment. There is also no consideration in the impugned award of the evidence filed by the petitioners before the respondent No. 1 in support of their claim that the respondent No. 2 was employed in their establishment as a hawker and not as a salesman as alleged by him. This omission on the part of the respondent No. 2 has further vitiated the impugned award. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the impugned award cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. This omission on the part of the respondent No. 2 has further vitiated the impugned award. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the impugned award cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. The writ petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed. The award dated 24.12.2007 passed by the respondent No. 1 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent No. 1 for passing a fresh award in the matter after considering the objections raised by the petitioners in their written statement and the evidence adduced by the parties in support of their respective claims, in accordance with law. Necessary exercise in this regard shall be completed by the respondent No. 1 within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. —————