JUDGMENT : J.J. MUNIR, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed, challenging an order passed by the Labour commissioner, U.P. Kanpur dated 05.05.2020 and a notice dated 03.07.2020 issued by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (3) U.P. Kanpur, in Adjudication Case No. 115 of 2020. 2. In compliance with the order dated 07.12.2020, a better affidavit has been filed by Mr. Mahadeo N. Bobde, presently a Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue at Lucknow and formerly, the Labour Commissioner, U.P. Kanpur Nagar. By an earlier order dated 26.11.2020, the named officer was required to file a personal affidavit for the reasons indicated therein. He filed a personal affidavit on 07.12.2020. It was not found satisfactory. He was granted an opportunity to file a better affidavit. The affidavit dated 16.12.2020 has been filed, in compliance with the order dated 07.12.2020, as already indicated. 3. The explanation offered by Mr. Mahadeo N. Bobde is accepted. 4. Notice was issued to respondent no. 4, in compliance with this Court's order, by speed post, bearing Consignment No. EU296438326IN, which has been delivered to the fourth respondent on 01.12.2020. It is so indicated in the Office Report dated 05.12.2020. The Office report also shows that their conclusion about delivery by speed post is based on a post office report dated 05.12.2020, along with a track of the consignment that is attached. An affidavit of service dated 05.12.2020 has also been filed by Mr. Diptiman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, which encloses with it a copy of the dasti notice handed over to the petitioner by the office on 27.11.2020. A perusal of the second copy of the notice form shows that service has been effected dasti also upon respondent no. 4 on 01.12.2020. Accordingly, service upon the fourth respondent is held good. No one appears his behalf. 5. Heard Mr. Diptiman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Shriprakash Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. 6. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited is a Central Government undertaking that functions under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. It is a company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, with its Registered Office at 15/1, Cubbon Road, Bengaluru. The Company is engaged in the manufacture, repair and overhauling of aircraft and other defence equipment. 1, 2 and 3. 6. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited is a Central Government undertaking that functions under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. It is a company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, with its Registered Office at 15/1, Cubbon Road, Bengaluru. The Company is engaged in the manufacture, repair and overhauling of aircraft and other defence equipment. They provide services and cater to the requirements of the defence services in India. The petitioner has several units across the country. 7. This writ petition relates to the Transport Aircraft Division, HAL, Kanpur. The Transport Aircraft Division, Kanpur deals with the manufacture, maintenance, overhauling and repair of transport aircraft used by the Defence Forces of the Nation. It is represented on behalf of the petitioner that the President of India, being the Head of the Executive and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces under Article 53 of the Constitution, commands 100% shares holding of the company : some directly, the others vicariously. The President of India holds six shares out of eleven and all the other five directors are high ranking officers of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, who function under the direct control of the President of India as the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. It is thus made out that the appropriate Government vis-a-vis the petitioner under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are the Central Government. 8. It figures that on 26.07.2007, a reference was made by the State Government under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Central Act’) at the behest of respondent no. 4, who are an employees’ association of the petitioners. The dispute referred was one relating to promotion of two employees of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.07.2005. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that the reference order clearly shows that the dispute has been referred by the State Government under Section 10(1)(c) of the Central Act and the same requires to be adjudicated by a Court constituted under the Central Act. However, the reference order dated 26.07.2007 has referred the dispute to the Labour Court (5), Kanpur which was not a Court constituted under the Central Act. 9. The aforesaid case was registered as Adjudication Case No. 137 of 2008 on the file of the Labour Court (5), Kanpur. On January the 13th, 2009, the petitioners filed their written statement in the cause. 9. The aforesaid case was registered as Adjudication Case No. 137 of 2008 on the file of the Labour Court (5), Kanpur. On January the 13th, 2009, the petitioners filed their written statement in the cause. A preliminary objection was raised with regard to the competence of the Labour Court inasmuch as the Labour Court was not constituted under the Central Act. It was urged that a Labour Court constituted under the Central Act alone could have jurisdiction relating to a dispute between the petitioner and its workman. 10. During the course of proceedings, two issues were framed on 9th September, 2009. Issue no. 1 was regarding the competence of the authorized representative appointed to represent the employer-petitioners. That is not of relevance here. The second issue framed as Issue No. 2 reads thus (translated into English from Hindi vernacular): “Whether the Labour Court constituted by the Government of U.P. has jurisdiction to hear the reference or it is cognizable by the Labour Court constituted by the Central Government?” 11. There is no reason to disbelieve the petitioners’ un-rebutted case to the effect that after a detailed hearing, the Labour Court (3), Kanpur vide its order dated 17.07.2019, held that the Labour Court (3) is not competent to hear the matter, as it is not constituted under the Central Act. It was held that the reference was made under the Central Act and the Court constituted under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had no jurisdiction to hear and determine it. The order of reference dated 26.06.2007 was held to be bad in law and one conferring no jurisdiction. 12. It is averred in paragraph 20 of the writ petition that the order dated 17.07.2019 passed by the Labour Court has not been challenged by respondent no. 4 before any higher judicial forum/Court. Thus, the order dated 17.07.2019 has attained finality. It is also asserted that the order dated 17.07.2019 was made after hearing both parties at length and proper opportunity was provided by the Labour Court to the fourth respondent. It figures that on 14.11.2019 and 18.12.2019, the fourth respondent made applications to the Labour Commissioner, Kanpur seeking a review of the order dated 17.07.2019 passed by the Labour Court (3). Those applications are on record, compendiously annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. 13. The Labour Commissioner, curiously enough, sought opinion of the District Government Counsel (Civil), Kanpur. It figures that on 14.11.2019 and 18.12.2019, the fourth respondent made applications to the Labour Commissioner, Kanpur seeking a review of the order dated 17.07.2019 passed by the Labour Court (3). Those applications are on record, compendiously annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. 13. The Labour Commissioner, curiously enough, sought opinion of the District Government Counsel (Civil), Kanpur. The District Government Counsel vide his opinion dated 17.03.2020, advised the Labour Commissioner that the adjudication case could be heard by a Court constituted under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That opinion of the District Government Counsel dated 17th March, 2020 is also on record. The Labour Commissioner sent a memo dated 05.05.2020 to the Labour Court (3), with a request that the order dated 17.07.2019 may be reviewed and the adjudication case may be heard by that Labour Court. This communication from the Labour Commissioner to the Labour Court (3), Kanpur says after extracting the opinion that the Labour Commissioner had received from the District Government Counsel that bearing in mind the DGC’s opinion the Government have decided (the Labour Commissioner exercising delegated powers of the State Government) to send back the matter to the Labour Court for a review of its judgment. 14. The memo dated 05.05.2020, which, in substance, is an order passed by the Labour Commissioner, also returns along with it the original order dated 17.07.2019 passed in Adjudication Case No. 115 of 2010 to the Labour Court (3), Kanpur, enclosing with it a photostat copy of the District Government counsel’s opinion. This memo dated 05.05.2020 issued by the Labour Commissioner, U.P. Kanpur and addressed to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (3) Kanpur is hereinafter called ‘the impugned order’. 15. Acting on the impugned order, the Labour Court (3), Kanpur issued notice afresh to the petitioner, taking cognizance of the Adjudication Case No. 115 of 2010 which had already been decided by the Labour Court, in terms of which the award dated 17.07.2019, upholding the petitioner’s objections on ground of lack of jurisdiction, was passed. 16. 15. Acting on the impugned order, the Labour Court (3), Kanpur issued notice afresh to the petitioner, taking cognizance of the Adjudication Case No. 115 of 2010 which had already been decided by the Labour Court, in terms of which the award dated 17.07.2019, upholding the petitioner’s objections on ground of lack of jurisdiction, was passed. 16. Looking to the peculiar circumstances attending the impugned order and the prima facie gross usurpation of jurisdiction by the Labour Commissioner, U.P. Kanpur who virtually set aside a judicial order of the Labour Court by means of the impugned order, this Court required the then incumbent Labour Commissioner, U.P. to file his personal affidavit explaining circumstances in which he acted in the manner that he did. A personal affidavit dated 07.12.2020 was filed by Mr. S.M. Bobde, the then Labour Commissioner, U.P. and presently Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, Lucknow. He did not at all show in that affidavit as to how he got jurisdiction to undo a judicial determination of the Labour Court, in the exercise of his administrative powers on behalf of the State Government to make a reference. The explanation being prima facie not found satisfactory, further opportunity was granted to Mr. Bobde to file a better affidavit. He came up with a better affidavit dated 16th December, 2020 (sworn on 10.12.2020) filed in Court on 17.12.2020, where he accepted that he had passed the impugned order dated 05.05.2020 inadvertently, under some misconception and wrong advice. He said that, now that he has been transferred to the Board of Revenue, he cannot recall/withdraw the impugned order. 17. This Court has considered the matter in substantial detail, though without the assistance of respondent no. 4, who have chosen not to appear. The issue here is whether the Labour Commissioner, who exercises delegated powers of the State Government to refer a dispute under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, or, in the present case, under Section 10(1)(c) of the Central Act, could undo a judicial determination of the Labour Court, holding that the reference made to it by the State Government was incompetent. This Court does not think so. 18. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Labour Commissioner, U.P. Kanpur has held a judicial order of the Labour Court to be flawed. This Court does not think so. 18. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Labour Commissioner, U.P. Kanpur has held a judicial order of the Labour Court to be flawed. He has sent back the matter to the Labour Court to decide the reference on merits. The Labour Commissioner has decided that the reference is competent. He has done so on the basis of an opinion of the District Government Counsel, Kanpur Nagar. The Labour Commissioner is not a Court. He exercises the powers of the State Government to make a reference that is not a judicial power of any kind. All that he can exercise is an administrative or executive power conferred on the Government. Now, if there were a delegation in his favour under Section 39, assuming that he had the necessary delegation, the delegation of powers under Section 39 of the Central Act made by the Central Government is to exercise the administrative power of making a reference to the competent Court. It is in no way a judicial authority of supervision over the Labour Court, conferred on the Commissioner. In case, any party was aggrieved by the order dated 17.09.2019 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (3), U.P. Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 115 of 2010, it was open to that party to approach this Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution, for those are the only remedies that are open, apart from Article 136 of the Constitution, to challenge a judicial determination of the Labour Court, be it an order or an award. There is no principle known to law which permits an administrative review of judicial action. The law envisages judicial review of administrative action, and in some cases, legislative action also. But there is no concept known to law that permits an administrative review. Judicial orders can be undone by invoking the appellate, revisional or supervisory procedures by approaching a higher judicial forum. It cannot be done by an executive or administrative action. The impugned order is also bad, for another reason. It has proceeded substantially, if not entirely, on the opinion of the District Government Counsel. Even if an opinion were sought by the Labour Commissioner, who is presumably a layman (as opposed to a legally trained mind) ought not have referred to the legal opinion received by him. The impugned order is also bad, for another reason. It has proceeded substantially, if not entirely, on the opinion of the District Government Counsel. Even if an opinion were sought by the Labour Commissioner, who is presumably a layman (as opposed to a legally trained mind) ought not have referred to the legal opinion received by him. In fact, he should not have acted on any legal opinion at all. This is so because an order founded on legal opinion is not one where the Authority making the order, has done an independent application of mind. Rather, he has gone by the opinion of another, may be a legal expert. This in itself would vitiate the impugned order. In any view of the matter, this Court is of clear opinion that the impugned order undoing a judicial order by an administrative determination is ultra-vires and without jurisdiction. Though, Mr. Diptiman Singh sought to justify the order dated 17.07.2019 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (3), U.P. Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 115 of 2010, this Court is not minded to examine that question in the absence of a challenge to the order dated 17.07.2019 by a party who is aggrieved. It is also made clear that if any party, including the fourth respondent, is aggrieved by the order dated 17.07.2019, it would be open to them to challenge the said order through competent proceedings, as advised. 19. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.05.2020, passed by the Labour Commissioner, U.P. Kanpur insofar as it relates to Adjudication Case No. 115 of 2010, is hereby quashed. The consequential notice issued by the Labour Court (3) U.P. Kanpur dated 03.07.2020 in Adjudication Case No. 115 of 2010 is also quashed. 20. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.