Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.;— Heard learned counsel for the parties. State of U.P. made a reference to Industrial Tribunal (IV), Agra under Section 10(1) of Industrial Disputes Act (Central) read with Section 6(2) of Sales Promotion Employees Condition of Service Act, 1976. Section 6(2) of the latter Act is quoted below: "The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), as in force for the time being, shall apply to, or in relation to, sales promotion employees as they apply to, or in relation to, workmen within the meaning of that Act and for the purposes of any proceeding under that Act in relation to an industrial dispute, a sales promotion employee shall be deemed to include a sales promotion employee who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment had led to that dispute." The dispute was between the petitioner employer and its workman respondent No.3, Ratan Kumar and related to termination of his services dated 10.02.2000. The reference was received by the Industrial Tribunal (IV), Agra on 22.07.2003. However, as the Tribunal was vacant (there was no Presiding Officer of the Tribunal at the relevant time), hence State Government by G.O. dated 08.12.2005 transferred the adjudication case to Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Agra, which was registered there as Adjudication Case No.60 of 2006. The employer raised preliminary objection before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Agra that the transfer was bad and labour court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. The preliminary objection was rejected on 01.03.2007 which order has been challenged through this writ petition. In my opinion, the employer is unnecessarily delaying the proceedings by raising frivolous objections regarding jurisdiction. There is always a presumption that official acts are done in a proper manner. The preliminary objection was rejected on 01.03.2007 which order has been challenged through this writ petition. In my opinion, the employer is unnecessarily delaying the proceedings by raising frivolous objections regarding jurisdiction. There is always a presumption that official acts are done in a proper manner. Under Section 10(1), proviso (i) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Central) it is provided as under:- "provided that where dispute relates to any matter specified in the Third Schedule and is not likely to affect more than one hundred workmen, the appropriate Government may, if it so thinks fit, make the reference to a Labour Court under Clause (c)." Clauses (c) and (d) of Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Central) are quoted below: "(c) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, if it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule, to a Labour Court for adjudication or (d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule, to a Tribunal for adjudication:" Accordingly, the instant dispute might either be referred to Labour Tribunal or to Labour Court. Labour Courts constituted under U.P. Industrial Disputes Act are also labour courts established by the State Government under Industrial Disputes Act (Central) as provided under Section 7(1) of Industrial Disputes Act (Central), which is quoted below: "The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Labour Courts for the adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter specified in the Second Schedule and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under this Act." Accordingly, labour court constituted under U.P. Industrial Disputes Act can very well hear the matters specified in Second Schedule of Industrial Disputes Act (Central). In this regard, learned counsel for respondent has rightly referred to Section 6-G of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act where State Government has been empowered to transfer a proceeding from a Tribunal to a labour court if the dispute is within jurisdiction of the labour court. Leaned counsel for the respondent has filed written arguments. An authority of the Supreme Court reported in Workman of Ranga Vilas Motors Vs. Ranga Vilas Motors, AIR 1967 SC 1040 has been cited. However, that was with regard to territorial jurisdiction. Leaned counsel for the respondent has filed written arguments. An authority of the Supreme Court reported in Workman of Ranga Vilas Motors Vs. Ranga Vilas Motors, AIR 1967 SC 1040 has been cited. However, that was with regard to territorial jurisdiction. At present we are not concerned in this writ petition with territorial jurisdiction. A judgement of this court dated 10.12.2003 delivered by a Division Bench in Anglo French Drug Company Vs. P.O. Labour Court, Allahabad, 2004 (2) AWC 1544 has also been cited, however that was with regard to the question as to whether State of U.P. was appropriate Government to make the reference. In the instant case, this is not the dispute. The only dispute is regarding jurisdiction to transfer the case from Labour Tribunal to Labour Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed written arguments placing reliance upon the same judgment of the Division Bench which was cited by learned counsel for respondent (supra) reported in 2004 (2) AWC 1544 . Reliance has also been placed upon the Supreme Court authority reported in Management of M/s M.S. Nally Bharat Engineering Company Vs. State of Bihar, 1990 (2) SCC 48 . The point which was involved in the said case as to whether before passing transfer order management should have been heard. The said point is not involved in the instant case. As part of Annexure-3 to the writ petition, copy of notification dated 30.10.1975 has been annexed that was issued under Section 7 of Industrial Disputes Act (Central) constituting Labour Court at Agra and appointing Sri Vaosudeo Lal Srivastava as Presiding Officer of the same. Similar, notification must have been issued after every fresh appointment of new Presiding Officer. Accordingly, there is absolutely no merit in this writ petition, hence it is dismissed. Presiding Officer, Labour Court is directed to decide the case very expeditiously. Absolutely no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to the employer. If any adjournment is granted, it shall be on heavy cost which shall not be less than Rs.500/- per adjournment payable before the next date failing which petitioner employer shall not be permitted to participate in the proceedings of the case. _____________