JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In spite of valid service of notice and appearance by the advocate, for reason best known to the alleged respondent, nobody appears on his behalf. 3. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 28.09.2004 passed by the Presiding Officer-cum-Authority, Labour Court, Hazaribagh in M.J. Case No.1 of 2001 under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, whereby the claim of the alleged respondent-workman had been allowed to the tune of Rs.45,562/- for the period from July, 1995 to March, 1999. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the jurisdiction itself, has submitted that issue has been raised before the Labour Court that the respondent is not covered under the definition of workman as there is no relationship of employer and employee and as such, Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. 5. The plea raised by the employer had been negated by the Labour Court and on the basis of such finding of relationship of employer and employee, the claim petition had been allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to this Court to the Award dated 16.08.2007 passed in Reference Case No.4 of 2004. It has been submitted that an industrial dispute has been raised by the present petitioner. 7. In the above award, finding had been recorded by the Labour Court that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the management and the alleged workman. 8. It is trite that the Labour Court is not authorized to decide any jurisdictional dispute between the parties under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The existence of relationship of employer and employee is a jurisdictional dispute and the Labour Court is not authorized to decide the same, if this point has been raised before the Court. 9. In the present case, the point has been raised and considered by the Labour Court, but issue has been decided under Section 33 (C) (2) of the I.D. Act for which Labour Court is not authorized. Further the authorized authority i.e. Labour Court has given finding on the basis of evidence in Reference Case No.04 of 2004 that there is no relationship of employer and employee i.e. the alleged workman and employer. 10. Further the authorized authority i.e. Labour Court has given finding on the basis of evidence in Reference Case No.04 of 2004 that there is no relationship of employer and employee i.e. the alleged workman and employer. 10. Thus the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error. The Labour Court has exercised jurisdiction, although it lacks the same. 11. In view of above discussion, the impugned order dated 28.09.2004 is, hereby, quashed. 12. The present writ petition is allowed.