JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard Sri Shyam Narain, learned Counsel for the petitioner assisted by Sri Sudhanshu Narain, Advocate and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees Union through its Secretary challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 7.3.2008 passed in Misc. Case Nos. 4 of 2006 and award dated 8.7.2005 published on 19.12.2005 passed by the Labour Court (2), U.P. Ghaziabad in Adjudication Case Nos. 346 of 2003 by which the following matter of dispute referred to it for adjudication in exercise of powers under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. ÞD;k lsok;kstdks }kjk vius vknsk fn0 8-4-2008 }kjk Jfed Jh foØe flag iq= Jh jkeiky flag in&lhfuj VsfDufk;u dks fn;k x;k n.M mfpr ,oa oS/kkfud gS\ ;fn ugha rks Jfed D;k fgr ykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS ,oa vU; fooj.k lfgr\Þ 3. By the aforesaid award the Labour Court has held that since the cause of action has arisen at the instance of the workmen for adjudication it was their duty to prove their case but they have not done so and have neither even filed their written statements nor have adduced any evidence before the Labour Court. Per-contra, the employers have filed their written statements and also filed the documentary evidence in support of their case. By its award dated 8.7.2005 the Labour Court has held that : ÞlanHkfnk ÁkfIr ds ipkr okn iathÑr fd;k x;k rFkk i{kksa dks fyf[kr dFku nkf[ky djus gsrq lEeku Hkstk x;kA fnukad 18-3-2004 dks Jfed i{k mifLFkr gqvkA dbZ volj Jfed i{k dks fyf[kr dFku gsrq fn;k x;k ysfdu Jfed us viuk fyf[kr dFku nkf[ky ugha fd;k Jfed i{k ij lEeu dh rkehy Hkh i;kZIr gSA lsok;kstd i{k us viuk fyf[kr dFku nkf[ky fd;k rFkk vfHkys[k nkf[ky kiFk i= ds lkFk ÁLrqr fd;kA Jfed ds fuosnu ij gh lanHkfnk vfHkfu.kZ; gsrq ÁLrqr fd;k x;k] blfy, Jfed dks mifLFkr gksdj vius okn dh iSjoh djuh pkfg, Fkh ysfdu mlus ,slk ugha fd;k Jfed ds ,sls vkpj.k ls Li"V gS fd mls ekeys esa dksbZ :fp ugha gSA vuko;d :i ls dk;Zokgh dks yfEcr j[kuk U;k;ksfpr ugha gS ,okMZ rn~uqlkj ikfjr Jfed fdlh fgrykHk dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSAÞ 4. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had given necessary instructions, authority letter and papers to its representative Sri Dhanpal Singh Tyagi who by mistake kept the same in some other file and did not attend the case as such the case was decided ex parte in favour of the employers as aforesaid. 5. It is also stated that though the award was published on the notice-board on 19.12.2005 it was received by the petitioner Union on 13.2.2006. Thereafter a restoration application along with an affidavit was filed by Sri Dhanpal Singh before the Labour Court on 17.2.2006 and the employers filed their objections to the restoration application. After hearing parties the Labour Court vide order dated 7.3.2008 dismissed the restoration application of the petitioner. 6. Thereafter a restoration application along with an affidavit was filed by Sri Dhanpal Singh before the Labour Court on 17.2.2006 and the employers filed their objections to the restoration application. After hearing parties the Labour Court vide order dated 7.3.2008 dismissed the restoration application of the petitioner. 6. As regards question of delay the Labour Court held : Þ4- lsok;kstd dk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd Jfedx.k us dksbZ i;kZIr dkj.k viuh vuqifLFkfr ds lEcU/k esa ugha fn[kk;k x;k gSA fnukad 17-1-2006 ds 60 fnu ls T;knk le; iwjs gksus ds ipkr Jfedx.k dh vksj ls ÁkFkZuk i= fn;k x;k gSA lsok;kstd dk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd Jfedx.k vokMZ dh Áfrfyfi fnukad 10-2-2005 dks ÁkIr dh Fkh fnukad 10-2-2006 dks ughaA 5- lsok;kstd dk dFku ;g gS fd ;fn fdlh frfFk dks Jfedx.k mifLFkr ugha gks lds Fks rks og eqdnesa esa ckn dh frfFk;ksa ij mifLFkr gks ldrs FksA Jfedx.k dk ;g dFku fd bl eqdnesa dh tkudkjh vokMZ ikfjr gksus ds ckn gq;h iw.kZr;k xyr gSA Jfedx.k us tkucw>dj U;k;ky; esa vkuk cUn fd;k vkSj og ykijokg gSA lsok;kstd dk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd Jfedx.k ds ÁkFkZuk&i= lR;kiu Hkh fof/k vuqdwy ugha gS blfy;s Jfedx.k dk ÁkFkZuk i= vusd fcUnqvksa ij =qfViw.kZ gS vkSj fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA 6- eSaus nksuksa i{kksa ds Áfrfu/k;ksa ds rdZ lqus vksj vfHkfu.kZ; fookn la[;k 346@2003 dh i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA 7- Jfed i{k dh vksj ls tks ewy ÁkFkZuk i= fn;k x;k gS vkSj kiFk i= layXu fd;k gS og fdlh Hkh Jfed ds }kjk gLrk{kj ;qDr ugha gSA ;g ÁkFkZuk i= vf/kÑr Áfrfuf/k Jh /kuiky flag R;kxh ds }kjk ÁLrqr fd;k x;k gSA bl ÁkFkZuk i= dk lR;kiu ugha fd;k x;k gSA tcfd ;g loZfofnr gS fd ,slk ÁkFkZuk i= IyhfMaxl rFkk fiVhku dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA vkSj bl Ádkj ds ÁkFkZuk i= dk lR;kiu gksuk t:jh gS] ysfdu bl ÁkFkZuk i= ds lkFk layXu kiFk i= dk lR;kiu fd;k x;k gS vkSj bl kiFk i= dh /kkjk 3 esa ;g mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd layXu ÁkFkZuk i= esa dgk x;k dFku lgh gSA lR;kfir /kkjk esa fy[kk x;k gS fd layXu ÁkFkZuk i= esa dgk x;k dFku lgh gSA lR;kfir /kkjk esa fy[kk gS fd lR;kfir fd;k tkrk gS fd kiFk i= dh /kkjk;sa 1 ls 3 esjs tku o fookl esa lgh gSA dksbZ dFku vlR; ugha gSa bZoj esjh lgk;rk djsaA bl kiFk i= ds ek/;e ls esjh jk; esa ewy ÁkFkZuk i= dk lR;kiu fd;k tkuk eku fy;k tkrk gS D;ksa bl ÁkFkZuk i= dk lR;kiu kiFk i= dk lR;kiu kiFk i= ek/;e ls fd;k x;k gSA bl Ádkj Hkh ÁkFkZuk i= dk lR;kiu fd;k tk ldrk gSA blfy;s bl lEcU/k esa lsok;kstd dh vkifRr iks"k.kh ugha gSA 8- Jfedx.k dks ;g rF; Lohdkj gS fd bu ij ÁkjEHk esa Hksts x;s lEeu dh rkehy gq;hA ;g rF; i=koyh ij lEeu dkxt la[;k 2&d ij fy[kh vk[;k ls Hkh iw.kZr;k fl) gks tkrk gS blds vfrfjDr i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd fnukad 18-3-2004 dks nksuksa i{k bl eqdnesa esa U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr Fks blds ckn bl eqdnesa easa fnukad 20-7-2004] 9-11-2004] 21-2-2005] 1-4-2005 rFkk fnukad 24-5-2005 nksuksa i{kksa ds Áfr okn i= ÁLrqr djus ds fy;s fufpr dh x;hA lsok;kstd mijksDr frfFk;ksa ij U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gksrs jgs ijUrq Jfed dh vksj ls mijksDr ikap frfFk;ksa ij dksbZ mifLFkr ugha gqvk vkSj dksbZ Áfrokn i= Hkh ÁLrqr ugha fd;k x;kA lEeu dkxt la[;k 2&d fnukad 22-8-2003 dks tkjh fd;k x;k FkkA tks Jfed i{k ij O;fDrxr rkehy gqvk FkkA fnukad 24-5-2005 dks Jfed i{k dk MCyw0,l0 dk vf/kdkj lekIr fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj Jfed ds fo:) ,d i{kh; dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus dk vknsk ikfjr fd;k x;k FkkA iquZLFkkiuk ÁkFkZuk i= 10 Mh fnukad 17-2-2006 dks isk fd;k x;k FkkA tcfd ;w0ih0vkbZ0Mh0 :Yl 1957 /kkjk 16¼2½ ds vuqlkj ;g ÁkFkZuk i= fnukad 24-5-2005 ds ckn 10 fnu ds vUnj fn;k tkuk pkfg;s Fkk tks ugha fn;k x;kA bl ÁkFkZuk i= nsus esa tks vkB ekg ls T;knk dk foyEHk gqvk vkSj bl vR;kf/kd foyEHk dks {kek djus ds fy;s Jfedx.k dh vksj ls fyfeVsku vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5 ds vUrxZr Hkh bl nsjh dks {kek djus ds fy;s dksbZ ÁkFkZuk i= ugha fn;k x;kA D;ksafd fyfeVsku vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 ls 24 ykxw ugha gksrh gSA tSlk fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn LVsV vkWQ ;w0ih0 foijhr ihBklhu vf/kdkjh Je U;k;ky; ¼2½ esjB 2005 ¼105½ ,Q0,y0vkj0 ist 391 bykgkckn mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds iSjk 3 esa fuf.kZr fd;k x;kA Jfedx.k fnukad 18-3-2004 dks U;k;ky; esa mifLFkfr ds ipkr vuqifLFkr jgus ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ Hkh Li"Vhdj.k ugha fn;k x;k gS fd Jfedx.k fnukad 20-7-2004] 9-11-2004] 21-2-2005] 1-4-2005 rFkk 24-5-2005 dks U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr D;ksa ugha gq;sAÞ 9- ;gka ij ;g Li"V djuk vko;d gS fd ;g ekeyk ,slk ugha gS ftlesa Jfedx.k ij lEeu dh O;fDrxr rkehy ugha gq;h vkSj Jfedx.k Hkh U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr ugha gq;sA ;fn ,slk gksrk rks oLrqr% fLFkfr nwljh gks ldrh Fkh ysfdu ;gka rks lEeu dh O;fDrxr rkehy gqvk gS vkSj Jfedx.k fnukad 18-3-2004 dks U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gq;s gSa tSlk fd fnukad 18-3-2005 dh vkMZj jhV esa fy[kk gSA ,slk Hkh ugha gS fd fnukad 20-7-2004 dks igyh gh rkjh[k ij Jfedx.k dks mifLFkr ds dkj.k muds fo:) ,d i{kh; dk;Zokgh gks x;hA cfYd U;k;ky; us fnukad 20-7-2004 ls 24-5-2005 rd Jfedx.k dk bartkj fd;kAÞ 7. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up before this Court on the ground that the order dated 7.3.2008 and the award dated 8.7.2005, Annexures-5 and 1 appended to the writ petition respectively are illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as the said award dated 8.7.2005 is not an award as defined in sub-section (c) of Section 2 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; that in this view of the matter the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner is still alive and in existence having not been determined finally or even as an interim measure. 8. The award is also challenged on the ground that the finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner has not given any explanation for his absence after 18.3.2004 is against the evidence on record inasmuch as sufficient and cogent reasons and explanations have been given in the affidavit of Sri Dhan Pal Singh the petitioner’s representative in support of the restoration application; that no appearance of the authorized representative of the petitioner in the proceedings was due to bonafide mistake; and that the question of limitation of 30 days from the date of publication of the award under Section 6-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not arise for the simple reason that the award is illegal and without jurisdiction and is not an award as defined in Section 2 (c) of the Act. 9. 9. ‘Award’ and ‘Industrial Dispute have been defined in Section 2 (c) and 2 (i) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act as follows : “2(c) ‘Award’ 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 Arbitration award made under Section 5-B.” 16 (b) ”Industrial Dispute” has been defined in Section 2(1) of the Act as follows : 2(1) ‘Industrial Dispute’ means any dispute or difference between employers and employers or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the term of employment or with the conditions of labour, or any person; but does not include an industrial dispute concerning— (i) any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or by a Railway Company, or (ii) such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by Central Government, or (iii) banking and insurance companies as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or (iv) a mine or an oil-field;” 10. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid two Sections quoted above shows that the award is final and interim determination of an industrial dispute. 11. The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., 1979 (39) FLR 70; V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and others, 1979 (39) FLR 70; Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and others, 1984 (49) FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others. 1996 (74) FLR 2004 that in the absence of any evidence led by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the Court against the workman. In such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led. 12. Admittedly, in the present case the workmen have neither filed their written statements nor have produced any oral and documentary evidence in support of their case. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led. 12. Admittedly, in the present case the workmen have neither filed their written statements nor have produced any oral and documentary evidence in support of their case. Therefore, the test laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases wholly applies to the facts and circumstances of the case as has been noted by the Labour Court in the last paragraph of the award. 13. Therefore, the test laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases wholly applies to the facts and circumstances of the case as has been noted by the Labour Court in the last paragraph of the award. 13. As regards limitation the Labour Court while deciding the application of the petitioner in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the award has held that : Þ10- bl Ádkj mijksDrkuqlkj Jfedx.k dk ÁkFkZuk i= dkQh foyEc ls ÁLrqr fd;k x;k gS vkSj bl foyEc dks {kek djus ds fy;s /kkjk 5 fyfeVsku vf/kfu;e dk dksbZ ÁkFkZuk i= ugha fn;k x;k FkkA blfy;s ;g ÁkFkZuk i= fu;ekoyh 1957 dh /kkjk 16¼2½ ds iw.kZr;k foijhr gSA lkFk gh lkFk ;gka ;g mYys[k djuk vko;d gS fd ;g iquZLFkkiuk ÁkFkZuk i= dh vf/kÑr Áfrfuf/k us fn;k vkSj mUgksaus viuk kiFki= layXu fd;kA Jfedx.k dh vksj ls mu ;wfu;u dh vksj ls dksbZ Hkh vf/kÑr O;fDr iquZLFkkiuk ÁkFkZuk i= ds leFkZu esa kiFk i= nsus ugha vkrk gSA blls ;g fofnr gksrk gS fd ;wfu;u okys vc Hkh lks jgs gSa vkSj lcdk dk;Zokgh vf/kÑr Áfrfuf/k gh dj jgs gSa ftlesa kiFk i= Hkh lfEefyr gSA 11- Jfedx.k ¼;wfu;u½ dks Lohdkj gS fd ,d i{kh; vokMZ fnukad 8-7-2005 dk Ádkku fnukad 19-12-2005 dks uksfVl cksMZ ij lwpuk dks ÁnfkZr djus ds }kjk gqvkA Jfedx.k dk ;g dFku 10&Mh esa fy[kk gSA fnukad 19-12- 2005 ls 30 fnu dh vof/k ds vUrxZr ,d i{kh; vokMZ dks fujLr djkus gsrq fof/kor ÁkFkZuk i= fn;k tk ldrk gSA ;fn bl vof/k ds ipkr ÁkFkZuk i= fn;k gS rks mldk dksbZ lUrku ysus ds fy;s Je U;k;ky; l{ke ugha jg tkrh gSA bl lEcU/k esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn dh fuEufyf[kr fof/k O;oLFkk gS % ¼1½ 2002 ¼95½ ,Q0,y0vkj0 720 LVsV vkWQ ;w0ih0 fojhr ihBklhu vf/kdkjh Je U;k;ky; vkxjk A ¼2½ 1985 ¼51½ ,Q0,y0vkj0 551 mŸkj Ánsk jkT; fo|qr foijhr vkS|kSfxd U;k;ky;kf/kdj.kA ¼3½ 2005 ¼105½ ,Q0,y0vkj0 391 mŸkj Ánsk jkT; foijhr ihBklhu vf/kdkjh U;k;ky; vkxjk ¼2½ esjBA ¼4½ 2003 ¼96½ ,Q0,y0vkj0 642 f=os.kh LVSDpj fy0 bykgkckn fojhr LVsV vkWQ ;w0ih0A ¼5½ 2004 ¼102½ ,Q0,y0vkj0 801 ;w0ih0 dksvkijsfVo QsMjsku fy0 y[kuÅ fojhr ihBklhu vf/kdkjh Je U;k;ky; ¼2½ esjBA ¼6½ 2003 ¼98½ ,Q0,y0vkj0 799 e/; Ánsk mPp U;k;ky; Ñf"k mRiknu eaMh lfefr Fkkj fojhr egsk HkkVh vkfnA 12- Jfed Áfrfuf/k us ;g rdZ ÁLrqr fd;k fd Jfed i{k fnukad 10-2-2006 dks ÁLrqr fd;k fd Jfed i{k fnukad 10-2-2006 dks vokMZ dh Áfrfyfi ÁkIr gq;h gS vkSj iquZLFkkiuk ÁkFkZuk i= fnukad 17-2-2006 dks ÁLrqr fd;k x;k gSA blfy;s ;g ÁkFkZuk i= fnukad 17-2-2006 dks ÁLrqr fd;k x;k gSA blfy;s ;g ÁkFkZuk i= 30 fnu ds vUnj ÁLrqr dj fn;k x;kA ;g Hkh cgl fd;k gS fd bl U;k;ky; dks ÁkFkZuk i= dks lquus dk {ks=kf/kdkj gS vkSj vokMZ iquZFkkiuk ÁkFkZuk i= nsus rd vafre ugha gqvk FkkA bl fcUnq ij lsok;kstd Áfrfuf/k us ;g rdZ ÁLrqr fd;k fd U;k;ky; ds }kjk vokMZ ikfjr djus dh lwpuk fnukad 19-12-2005 dks uksfVl cksMZ ij lwpuk ds ek/;e ls ÁnfkZr dj nh x;h blfy;s vokMZ dk Ádkku fnukad 19-12-2005 dks gks x;k Fkk vkSj ;g rF; Jfedx.k us Lo;a vius ÁkFkZuk i= esa Lohdkj fd;k gS blfy;s 30 fnu dh vof/k fnukad 19-12-2005 ls fxuh tk;sxhA ;g Hkh rdZ ÁLrqr fd;k x;k fd vokMZ ds Ádkku dh frfFk nks ugha gks ldrhA lsok;kstd Áfrfuf/k dk mijksDr rdZ xyr rFkk vk/kkjghu Árhr ugha gksrk tcfd Jfedx.k Lo;a gh ekudj pys gSa bl ,d i{kh; vokMZ dk Ádkku fnukad 19-12-2005 dks gks x;k FkkA rc Jfedx.k bl LohdkjksfDr dks okfil ugha ys ldrs Jfedx.k dk bl lEcU/k esa dFku ÁkFkZuk i= 10&Mh esa Li"V :i ls fy[kk gqvk gSA bu rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr esa vokMZ ds Ádkku dh frfFk 19-12-2005 ekuh tkrh gS tks Jfedx.k dks Lo;a Hkh Lohdkj gS fnukad 19-12-2005 ds ipkr 30 fnu ds vUnj ÁkFkZuk i= ns nsuk pkfg;s Fkk ysfdu ugha fn;k x;kA blfy;s ;g ÁkFkZuk i= bl vk/kkj ij dkycf/kr gks tkrk gS vkSj 30 fnu dh vof/k ds ipkr U;k;ky; dks ,d i{kh; dks fujLr djus dk dksbZ {ks=kf/kdkj ugha jg tkrk gSA 13- mijksDr lHkh ds vk/kkj ij Jfed bl iquZLFkkiuk ÁkFkZuk i= 10&Mh fujLr fd;k tkrk gS fofo/k la[;k 4@2006 fujLr fd;k tkrk gSAÞ 14. The arguments of the Counsel may also be tested from the angle of Rule 12(9) read with Rule 16 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1947. Rule 12(9) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1947 framed under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides that : “12 (9) If the affidavit accompanying the written statement of the union or the workmen is not rebutted by the employers, the Labour Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, shall presume the contents of the affidavit to be true and make an award accepting the facts stated in the written statement.” 15. The corollary from this rule is that if the affidavit of the employer is also not rebutted by the workman then the contents of the written statement of the employer will also have to be presumed to be correct. This natural corollary flowing from Rule 12(9) of the aforesaid Rules also finds support from the ratio laid down in the case of Choksi Tube Company Limited v. Union of India, 1997 (11) SCC 179 and AIR 1993 SC 2592 ; Naseem Bano v. State of U.P. and others, and a stream of other decisions rendered by the Apex Court. 16. Rule 16 provides that Labour Court or Tribunal or Arbitrator may proceed ex parte and if, on the date fixed or on any other date to which the hearing may be adjourned, any party to the proceeding before the Labour Court or Tribunal or an Arbitrator is absent, though duly served with summons or having the notice of date of hearing, the Labour Court or Tribunal or the Arbitrator, as the case may be, may proceed with the case in his absence and pass such order as it may deem fit and proper. 17. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 provides that the Labour Court, Tribunal or an Arbitrator may set aside the order passed against the party in his absence, if within ten days of such order, the party applies in writing for setting aside such order and shows sufficient cause for his absence. 18. Sub-rule (2) is as under : “The Labour Court, Tribunal or an Arbitrator may set aside the order passed against the party in his absence, if within ten days of such order, the party applies in writing for setting aside such order and shows sufficient cause for his absence. 18. Sub-rule (2) is as under : “The Labour Court, Tribunal or an Arbitrator may set aside the order passed against the party in his absence, if within ten days of such order, the party applies in writing for setting aside such order and shows sufficient cause for his absence. The Labour Court, Tribunal or an Arbitrator may require the party to file an affidavit stating the cause of absence. As many copies of the application and affidavit, if any, shall be filed by the party concerned as there are persons on the opposite side. Notice of the application shall be given to the opposite parties before setting aside the order.” 19. This Court has also in the case of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal. U.P. Agra and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54914 of 2004 decided on 7th October, 2005 held that once the award is published it cannot be set aside on the ground of limitation that after 30 days of publication; that Section 6-A of the Act providing that the award will become enforceable filed after 30 days. In view of the laws referred to above the award attains its finality after 30 days of publication and therefore as nothing further can be done even an ex parte award is final determination of the dispute under reference thereafter. 20. Admittedly, in the present case neither the application for restoration or recall has been made within 10 days under Rule 16(2) of the Rules nor within 30 days of publication. Admittedly, the application for setting aside was moved after 30 days of the enforcement of the award under Section 6-A of the Act, therefore, it has attained its finality and it cannot be said that the reference has not been determined. It may be that the reference may not have been adjudicated on merit, but the dispute has certainly attained its finality. In the circumstances, therefore, the award rendered by the Labour Court and published under Section 6-A of the Act is an award as defined under Section 2 (c) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 21. For all the aforesaid reasons stated above and in view of the law referred above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ————