JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—The present writ petition arises out of an award made by the Labour Court under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in favour of the respondent No. 3 - workman. 2. The employer has challenged the award as being ex parte and has also raised a basic ground of jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 6 (2) of the Sales Promotion Employees (Condition of Service) Act, 1976 read with Section 10 (1) © of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act). 3. It appears that the matter was heard finally by a learned single Judge of this Court and the writ petition was allowed remanding the matter back to the Labour Court, Saharanpur, for decision afresh as the learned counsel agreed that the award was ex parte. The judgment dated 28.2.2008 is quoted herein below : “Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddharth for the respondent-workman. This petition is substantially directed against an ex parte award. Both the parties agree on the facts of the case that the matter may be remanded to the Labour Court to re-hear the matter and pass an award after opportunity to the parties. Having considered the entire facts, it appears appropriate to quash the award dated 23.2.2007 passed in Adjudication Case No. 70 of 2006. Accordingly, writ petition stands allowed and the Award is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Labour Court, Saharanpur, who shall decide the dispute afresh after hearing the parties preferably, within a period of three months. Both the parties shall appear before the Labour Court, Saharanpur, respondent No. 2 on 27.3.2008 on which date the Presiding Officer shall fix another date to enable the parties to file their respective statements. The parties shall not be granted any adjournment of more than three days at a time. Sd/- Hon. D.P. Singh, J Dated 28.2.2008” 4. It is, therefore, obvious from a perusal of the judgment that it was on the consent of the parties that the matter was remanded back to the Labour Court under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The issue relating to the validity of the award, therefore, was not examined in the light of the provisions of Section 6 (2) of the Sales Promotion Employees Act, 1976 and Section 10 (1) © of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. The issue relating to the validity of the award, therefore, was not examined in the light of the provisions of Section 6 (2) of the Sales Promotion Employees Act, 1976 and Section 10 (1) © of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. After remand, the Labour Court came to be presided over by a retired I.A.S. Officer and, as such, the respondent-workman moved a Modification Application in this petition dated 5.5.2008 with a prayer to stay further proceedings before the Labour Court on the ground that the Presiding Officer was incompetent to adjudicate the controversy. A further prayer has been made that the Principal Secretary (Labour) be directed to appoint an Officer as defined under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to preside over the Court so that the proceeding may not be challenged on the ground of want of competence of the Officer. 6. The learned single Judge, who had disposed of the matter on 28.2.2008, passed the following order on 22.5.2008 : “Heard counsel for the parties. By a consent order the writ petition was allowed quashing ex parte award dated 23.2.2007 with a direction to the Labour Court, Saharanpur, to decide the issue afresh vide an order dated 28.2.2008. A modification application has been moved on behalf of the workman stating that the Presiding Officer of the said Labour Court is a retired I.A.S. Officer and is not a Judicial Officer and, therefore, in view of the decision of this Court, he cannot preside over the Court but this objection of the petitioner has not been considered by the State Government and no fresh Presiding Officer has been appointed. On these facts, it is stated that further proceedings may be stayed and the State Government may be directed to appoint a competent Presiding Officer. The learned Chief Standing Counsel is directed to address the Court on this issue on the next occasion as to why a competent person has not been appointed as the Presiding Officer. Further proceedings in pursuance of the aforesaid order of this Court dated 28.2.2008 before the respondent No. 2 shall remain stayed. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned Chief Standing Counsel within forty eight hours. List in the week commencing dated 4.8.2008. Sd/- Hon. D.P. Singh, J Dated 22.5.2008” 7. Further proceedings in pursuance of the aforesaid order of this Court dated 28.2.2008 before the respondent No. 2 shall remain stayed. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned Chief Standing Counsel within forty eight hours. List in the week commencing dated 4.8.2008. Sd/- Hon. D.P. Singh, J Dated 22.5.2008” 7. It appears that the matter was listed before the learned single Judge, who is now presiding over a Division Bench regularly and, as such, the same has been released with a direction to list it before the appropriate Court vide order dated 25.8.2011 quoted herein below : “Released. List before the appropriate Court and it shall not be treated as tied up to this bench. Sd/- Hon. D.P. Singh, J Dated 22.5.2008” 8. This is how the matter has now been listed before this Bench dealing with the regular jurisdiction of such matters. 9. I have heard Sri S.S. Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Siddharth for respondent No. 3 - applicant. From a perusal of the pleadings on record, it is obvious that the writ petition was disposed of on the consent of the parties on the ground that the award was ex parte. Nonetheless, over and above that the legal issue of want of jurisdiction of the Labour Court to proceed on a reference under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was also raised keeping in view the provisions of Section 6 (2) of the 1976 Act and Section 10 (1) © of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 10. In my opinion, the issue of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter inasmuch as even if the Labour Court renders an award under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the same would be an exercise which can be termed as coram non-judice inasmuch as the provisions of Sales Promotion Act, 1976 read with Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 makes it amply clear that the reference has to be made under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act) and not under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thus, the entire exercise of delivering the award by the Labour Court impugned herein was an exercise without authority. Thus, the entire exercise of delivering the award by the Labour Court impugned herein was an exercise without authority. It is by now well-settled that the jurisdiction to decide a dispute particularly an adjudication by a Tribunal cannot be conferred by consent of the parties, more so, when the field is already occupied by a Central Act. The Court also, therefore, would not have any power to confer such a jurisdiction on an authority where the field of legislation is occupied and where the authorities have been categorically defined under a different Act. 11. As noted above, the provisions of Section 6 (2) of the Sales Promotion Employees Act, 1976, clearly provides for the applicability of the provisions of the Central Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, thereby excluding the applicability of any other Act including the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The reference under the Central Act, therefore, has to be made under Section 10 (1) © before the notified Court as per the said Act and not in accordance with the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. 12. The law that the Court cannot confer jurisdiction or it cannot be conferred by the consent of parties has been time and again explained in a large number of decisions of the Apex Court as well as by this Court and to illustrate the same reference may be had to one of the Division Bench judgments in the case of Udit Narain Kshetriya High School, Padrauna, Deoria, through its Secretary Sri Ram Pratap Narain Singh and others v. District Magistrate, Deoria, 1993 (2) ACJ 1293. Thus, in the opinion of the Court, no useful purpose would be served by modifying the judgment dated 28.2.2008 as prayed for in the modification application. 13. Learned counsels have been heard at length and since this is an error apparent on the face of record and is even otherwise a mistake in law, the same deserves to be rectified by a review of the entire judgment dated 28.2.2008. This is permissible keeping in view the powers acknowledged by the Apex Court in a large number of decisions including the leading case of Smt. Jamna Kuer v. Lal Bahadur and others, AIR (37) 1950 FC 131. 14. This is permissible keeping in view the powers acknowledged by the Apex Court in a large number of decisions including the leading case of Smt. Jamna Kuer v. Lal Bahadur and others, AIR (37) 1950 FC 131. 14. Learned counsel for the parties also agree that the judgment dated 28.2.2000 be reviewed and the award be set aside with liberty to the respondent-workman to approach the appropriate authority for a reference in terms of Section 10 (1) © of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the services of respondent No. 3 - workman are un-disputedly governed by the provisions of Sales Promotion Employees (Condition of Service) Act, 1976. 15. Accordingly, the judgment dated 28.2.2008 is recalled. The writ petition in view of the reasons aforesaid is allowed. The impugned award dated 23.2.2007 in adjudication Case No. 70 of 206 is quashed as the reference itself was incompetent. It is open to the respondent-workman to approach the appropriate authority in the terms indicated herein above. 16. This modification application dated 5.5.2008 is treated to be a review petition in terms of Chapter IX Rule 14 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, read with Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. and the same accordingly stands disposed of in view of the judgment delivered today on the writ petition.