Sananda Bhandare, J.
(1) This petition challenges the order of the Delhi Administration No. F. 24(240/70-Lab-2l503 dated 23-7-1970whereby the Delhi Administration referred for adjudication to the Labor Court the following term of reference :
'WHETHER the refusal to duties to Shri Tarseem Lal is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect ?'
(2) The Labour Court proceeded to adjudicate the dispute and framed the following two issues :
'1. Whether there exists no industrial dispute between the parties and if so, the reference is bad in law ?
2.As in the term of reference.'
(3) As regards issue No. 1 the learned representative of the Management made a statement on 14-9-1971 before the Labour Court that he did not press the objection covered by this issue and, thereforee, the first issue was decided against the management. The Labour Court thereafter dealt with the facts of the case in detail and after considering the entire evidence andcircumstances, made an award directing the petitioner that the respondent betaken in service with full continuity in service. As regards back wages a direction was made that the respondent be paid half wages with effect from16-6-1969 till he resumes duty. It is also prayed in this petition that this award of the labour court be quashed.
(4) This case is shown in the list for the last 3 days but no one has appeared for the petitioner. The main ground in the petition before this court is that the order of reference made by the third respondent was in excess of powers and was ultravires Sections 7 and 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act and IInd schedule thereto.
(5) Mr. A S. Vir, Advocate appearing for the respondent has submitted that the reference is covered by the second schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act Counsel submitted that refusing to give work amount to dismissaland, thereforee, it is covered by item No. 3 of the IInd schedule. Counsel has also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tulsidas Paul v.Second Labour Court West Bengal and Others, 1971 (39) F.J.R. 265In this judgment reference has been made to the judgment of the Calcutta High Court where it was held that refusal to give work amounts todismissal.
(6) Under Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the appropriate government can by a notification in the official gazette constitute a labour court for adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter specified in the second schedule. Under Section 10 a 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, can be referred for adjudication to the labor court. The second schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, deals with the matters within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. Item No. 3 of the second schedule reads as :
'3.Discharge or dismissal of workmen including reinstatement of or grant of relief to, workmen wrongfully dismissed.'
(7) Apart from item No. 3 the Labour Court has jurisdiction in respect of all matters other than those specified in the third schedule. The question of refusal to give work would not be covered by the third schedule. It is well settled that refusal to give work amounts to dismissal. It would be,therefore, covered by item No. 3 of the second schedule. In any event itemNo. 6 of the second schedule is so wide that when the dispute is not covered by the third schedule, it would be covered by item No. 6. Moreover,issue No. 1 framed by the Labour Court namely ; whether the reference would be bad in law since no industrial disputes existed between the parties was specifically given up by the management before the Labour Court.Therefore, there can be no doubt that the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to deal with the dispute in reference. The notification is, thereforee, valid and not ultra-vires sections 7 and 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
(8) In exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not sit in appeal over the orders of the LabourCourt. The jurisdiction is supervisory and, thereforee, when a reasoned awards given, unless the petitioner is able to show that there is lack of jurisdiction,this court would not normally interfere. Since the order of reference made by the Delhi Administration is valid and the award of the Labour Court does not suffer from lack of Jurisdiction. The petition has to be dismissed. Nocosts.