KALYANOMY GANGULI, J.

( 1 ) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, an award dated 22nd December, 1988 passed by the learned 3rd Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal and order No. 10 passed by the said learned. Tribunal being Annexures 'a' and 'd' to the petition have been challenged.

( 2 ) THE matter was very hotly contested. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondents. Mr Jatin Gosh, Bar at Law, submitted that no affidavits would be necessary as the issue involved is purely a question of law. It is not necessary to go into all the rival contentions made at the hearing for the purpose of deciding the rule and/or issue involved in the matter.

( 3 ) THE short facts leading to the petition are as follows:-The petitioner No. 1 purchased 2 partnership firms, namely, M/s. B. S. Industries and M/s. B. S. Machine Tools Corporation on or about 21st August, 1985. The petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company registered under Companies Act, 1956. Four dates are relevant for the purpose of understanding the sequence of certain events. These are as follows:1. 22nd December, 1988 The impugned award was passed. 2. 19th January, 1989 The award was published in the Calcutta Gazelle. 3. 7th March, 1989 The petitioner company for the first time came to know about the said award.

( 4 ) 17th March, 1989 Application for setting aside the award was made by the petitioner. It is the allegation of the petitioners that on 7th March, 1989 the petitioners received a letter dated 20th February, 1989 from one Mr. Bidyut Bose of B. S. I. and B. S. N. Employees Union by which the petitioner company was requested to implement the award, impugned in the application, passed on 22nd December, 1988. The petitioners assert that for the first time on 7th March, 1989, the petitioners came to know that the impugned award was made and within 10 days of such knowledge, that is to say on 17th March, 1989, the petitioners filed an application for review of the award passed by the learned Tribunal. A copy of the said application has been annexed to the petition marked with the letter 'b'. Although in the Cause Title of the petition it has been stated that the application was one for 'review', but in the payer portion the petitioner company prayed for setting aside the ex parte award and till such award was set aside, the petitioner company further prayed for grant of stay of implementation of the award. The petitioners contended that as the petitioners were totally ignorant of the initiation and pendency of the industrial dispute they were prevented from appearing and contesting the proceeding. The learned Tribunal by order No. 10 passed on 3rd May, 1989 rejected the application of the petitioner for setting aside the award on the ground stated therein. The impugned ground for rejecting such an application seems to be the view of the learned Tribunal that it becomes functus officio after 30 days of the publication of the award and in such a case an application for review of the ex parte award filed after 30 days of the publication of the award must be held to be barred by limitation. The learned Tribunal also referred, inter alia, to Rule 27 of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 which, inter alia, provides that no application for review under Clause (iii) shall be entertained on the expiry of 15 days from the date of the award. 4. Mr. Partha Sarathi Sen Gupta, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, contended that the award impugned in the petition is no award at all in the eye of law as the proceeding did not comply with the mandatory provisions of the rules.

( 5 ) UNDER Section 8 of the Industrial Disputes (West Bengal 2nd Amendment) Act, 1980 it is provided as under: after Section 17-A of the principal Act, the following section shall be inserted: "17-B-Pronouncement and commencement of award, etc.- Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 17 and 17-A, (1) every award, other determination

Click Here to Read the rest of this document