JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri S.S. Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. The writ petition is directed against the notice dated 17.4.2001 issued by Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P., Gautambudh Nagar requiring petitioner to show cause as to why it should not be proceeded against for violating Section 25-M of Industrial Disputed Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1947”) and Rule 41-A of U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 1957”) by not obtaining permission of State before laying off its workman w.e.f. 28.5.2001. 3. It is contended that there is a difference in procedure in respect of lay off under the Central Act and State Act. The Apex Court has held in Engineering Kamgar Union v. M/s. Electro Steels Castings Ltd. and another, 2004(101) FLR 1086, that Chapter V-B of Central Act was inserted on or about 21.8.1984 whereby the State Act was enacted in the year 1983 inserting Section 6-V to 6-X. Since both the statutes are referable to List III of VIIth Schedule of the Constitution, in case of repugnancy and in absence of Presidential Assent, the Parliamentary Act would prevail but where assent has been given, State Act would prevail. In the present case, it is said that U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has received assent of President and, therefore, it shall prevail. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that this question with regard to lay off, whether State Act will prevail or not has also been considered and decided by this Court in N.K. Kejriwal and another v. State of U.P. and another, 2013 (136) FLR 352 and in view thereof the impugned notice is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned Standing Counsel, however, sought to defend the notice contending that Central Act shall prevail and since there is non-compliance, therefore, notice has validly been issued by respondent No. 1. 5. The only question up for consideration before this Court is, “whether in the present case with regard to procedure of lay off it is the Central Act which shall apply or the State Act”. 6. 5. The only question up for consideration before this Court is, “whether in the present case with regard to procedure of lay off it is the Central Act which shall apply or the State Act”. 6. This question has specifically been considered by Apex Court in Engineering Kamgar Union v. M/s. Electro Steels Castings Ltd. (supra) and after tracing the backdrop of various amendments in Central and State Act, in para 12 of the judgment, the Court ultimately held that the State Act having received Presidential Assent to the subsequent amendment made in Central Act, will prevail over the Central Act. 7. Learned Standing Counsel drew my attention to another amendment made in Central Act vide Industrial Disputes Amendment Act, 1984 (Act No. 49 of 1984), which has come into force on 16.8.1984 but there I find that some amendments have been made in Sections 25-F, 25-M, 25-N and 25-Q but the same are of no consequence, so far as basic question raised in this case is concerned. 8. The aforesaid judgment in Engineering Kamgar Union v. M/s. Electro Steels Castings Ltd. (supra) has been followed by a Single Judge of this Court in N.K. Kejriwal and another v. State of U.P. (supra). 9. Since the notice impugned in this petition has been issued, relying on the provisions of Central Act, though the Apex Court has clearly held that it is the State Act which shall prevail in respect of provisions pertaining to lay off, in my view, the impugned notice cannot sustain, being wholly without jurisdiction. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated 11.4.2001 is hereby quashed. 11. No costs. —————