JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - This special appeal is directed against judgment of a learned Single Judge allowing a writ petition filed by the Workmen, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd., Kanpur, respondent No. 1. On a dispute being raised by the respondent No. 1 the State Government on December 28, 1967 referred an industrial dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court II, at Kanpur, under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act hereinafter referred to as the Act. Respondent No. 2 who were the employers contested the claim, inter alia, on the ground that the dispute referred to did not constitute an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Act. This plea found favour with the Labour Court which by its order dated February 25, 1969 held that the matter of dispute was not an industrial dispute. The award of the Labour Court was not, however, published by the State Government and on an enquiry being made respondent No. 1 was informed that since in its award the Labour Court had, inter alia, held that the matter of dispute was not an industrial dispute the decision of the Labour Court has not been treated as an award and consequently it had not been published. The respondent No. 1 thereupon instituted a writ petition in this Court for a mandamus directing the State Government to publish the award. The writ petition was allowed. Hence this special appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh. 2. Learned Standing Counsel in sup port of the appeal contended that the decision given by the Labour Court to the effect that the dispute referred to it did not constitute an industrial dispute was not an award within the meaning of the said term as defined under the Act. He submitted that to constitute an award there must be either an interim or final determination of an industrial dispute. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon M.M. Union v. N.L. Vayas, AIR 1960 Bom 29 , Sital v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, (1969) 2 Lab LJ 275 ;(AIR 1969 M P 200); Andhra Handloom Weavers' Co-op. Society v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1963) 2 Lab LJ 488 (A.P.) British India Corpn. v. Labour Court, (1964) 1 Lab LJ 601 (All.) and Workmen of Travancore Rayons Ltd. v. T. R. Ltd., (1967) 1 Lab LJ 518 : (1968 Lab IC 139) (Ker.). Society v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1963) 2 Lab LJ 488 (A.P.) British India Corpn. v. Labour Court, (1964) 1 Lab LJ 601 (All.) and Workmen of Travancore Rayons Ltd. v. T. R. Ltd., (1967) 1 Lab LJ 518 : (1968 Lab IC 139) (Ker.). The first two cases referred to above were cases where in pursuance of some settlement the dispute was withdrawn and the Tribunal did not consequently decide the dispute referred to it. In the next two cases no determination of any dispute could be made inasmuch as the cases were dismissed in default. The last of the aforementioned cases was a case of dismissal for non-prosecution. As seen above in none of the cases referred to above there was either an interim or final determination of industrial dispute for one reason or the other and apparently, therefore, the decisions given therein could not constitute an award. 3. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel however, ignores the second clause of the definition of award. Award as defined in Section 2 (c) of the Act means an interim or final determination of any industrial dispute or of any question relating thereto by any Labour Court or Tribunal and includes an award made under Section 5-B. What is referred to a Labour Court under Section 4-K of the Act is a dispute which in the opinion of the State Government constitutes an industrial dispute. The Labour Court on the material furnished before it is competent to record a finding on the question as to whether the dispute as referred to it does or does not constitute an industrial dispute. The finding recorded on this question on the face of it amounts to determination of a question relating to an industrial dispute within the meaning of second clause of the definition of the term award under the Act. Section 6 (3) of the Act casts a duty upon the State Government to publish the award. That the provisions of Section 6 (3) are mandatory cannot be doubted in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sirsilk Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 160 and Remington Rand of India v. The Workmen, AIR 1968 SC 224 : (1968 Lab IC 204). That the provisions of Section 6 (3) are mandatory cannot be doubted in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sirsilk Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 160 and Remington Rand of India v. The Workmen, AIR 1968 SC 224 : (1968 Lab IC 204). In the aforesaid two cases interpreting Section 17 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is in pari material with Section 6 (3) of the Act their Lordships held that the intention behind Section 17 (1) was that a duty was cast on the Government and it was obligatory on its part to publish the award. The decision rendered by the Labour Court having been found to be an award and the provision contained in Section 6 (3) of the Act requiring the State Government to publish it being mandatory the learned Single Judge rightly issued a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to publish the award submitted to it by the Labour Court. 4. The appeal has no merits and it is accordingly dismissed. But since no one has appeared to oppose the appeal there will be no order as to costs.