Ashok Kumar Chakraborty, J. - (1.)The acts necessary for the purpose of disposal of this writ application are that the Second Industrial Tribunal by his order dated 2.12 94 disposed of an usual reference namely, whether the dismissal of the petitioner was justified by passing a no dispute award on the ground that though the parties to the proceeding had filed written statement in the case, still then in spite of repeated calls none of the parties was found present nor had they taken any steps. The workman thereafter filed an application for recalling the said order but the learned Tribunal by its order No. 23 dated 5 1.95 disposed of the said application by rejecting the said prayer. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner has come up with this writ application praying for quashing the order No. 23 dated 5.1.95.
(2.)Heard Mr. Bhanja Chowdhury, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. M.C. Das, Id. Advocate for the respondent workman and Mr. Priyatosh Das, learned Advocate for the State-respondents
(3.)Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner challenged the award on the ground that no dispute award is no award at all according to law and accordingly the said order is liable to be set aside. For this purpose he referred to the definition of 'award' in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 'Award' has been defined in Sec. 2(b) of the said Act as under:-
"award" means an interim or a final determination of any industrial dispute or of any question relating thereto by any Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal or National Industrial Tribunal and includes an arbitration award made under Sec. 10A."

There being no interim or final decision of an industrial dispute by passing 'no dispute award' and there being absolutely no provision in the Industrial Disputes Act allowing any Court or tribunal to pass such order that 'no dispute award' cannot be said to be legally tenable. For this purpose my attention was drawn to the case of Ganesh Sarkar Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 1988 (1) CHN 207, where it was held - "in my judgment the First Labour Court proceeded erroneously in not allowing the application for setting aside the "no dispute award" which, in fact, is not an award within the meaning of the Sec. 2(b) of the Act."

;