Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 65 of 1952. Appeal from an award dated 17th November	 1951	 made by the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India	 Calcutta	 in Appeal No. 280 of 1951. K. P. Khaitan (Harnam Das	 with him) for the appellant. H. B. Asthana for the respondents. Gopalji Mehrotra for the Intervener. December 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI J. This is an appeal by special leave against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal	 Calcutta	 upholding the award made by the State Industrial Tribunal	 Uttar Pradesh	 with certain modifications. An industrial dispute arose between the appellant	 the Vishwamitra Press Karyalaya	 Kanpur	 and the respondents	 the workers of the Vishwamitra Press as represented by the Kanpur Samachar Patra Karamchari Union	 Kanpur	 in regard to the alleged victimisation of certain workmen under the guise of 'retrenchment. That industrial dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal	 by a notification dated the 24th April	 1951. The time for making the award expired on the 9th June	 1951	 and on the 9th June. 1951	 a further notification was issued extending the time for making the award up to the 30th June	 1951. The 30th June	 1951	 was a public holiday and the 1st July was a Sunday. The Industrial Tribunal made its award on the 2nd July	 1951	 and pronounced it in open court on that day. It was however thought by the Uttar Pradesh Government that the award was beyond time and invalid and on the 18th July	 1951	 a notification was issued extending the period up to the 3rd July	 1951. This award was challenged by the appellant before the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The Labour Appellate. Tribunal negatived the Contentions of the appellant. The appellat applied 274 for special leave which was granted by this Court on the 21st December	 1951	 limited to the following grounds: " (1) The Government had no power to extend the time of the making of award after the expiry of the time originally fixed	 and the award made by the Adjudicator after such time is illegal	 ultra vires	 inoperative and void. (2)In any case the State Government I had extended the time for making the award till 30th June	 1951	 and the Adjudicator 's award made after that date is void. (3)That the extension of time by the Government on. 21st July	 1951	 after even the time extended previously had expired	 was ultra vires	 and it could not make a void award a valid award. " The industrial dispute which arose between the appellant and the respondents was referred by the Uttar Pradesh Government to the Industrial Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 3 and 4 of the Uttar Pradesh . The Uttar Pradesh Government had in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 (d) of the Act promulgated an order inter alia providing for the adjudication of the industrial disputes referred by it to the Industrial Tribunals. Paragraph 16 of that order ran as under : " The Tribunal or the Adjudicator shall hear the dispute and pronounce its decision within 40 days (excluding holidays observed by courts subordinate to the High Court) from the date of reference made to it by the State Government	 and shall thereafter as soon as possible supply a copy of the same to the parties to the dispute	 and to such other persons or bodies as the State Government may in writing direct. Provided that the State Government may extend the said period from time to time." Paragraph 9 which prescribed the powers and functions of Tribunals inter alia provided: 275 "(9). The decision shall be in writing	 and shall be pronounced in open court and dated and signed by the member or members of the Tribunal	 as the case may be	 at the time of pronouncing it. " It was not disputed before us that the original period calculated in accordance with paragraph 16 above expired on the 9th June	 1951	 and the Uttar Pradesh Government validly extended the period up to the 30th June	 1951. It was however contended that the Industrial Tribunal should have made its award on the 30th June	 1951	 and not on the 2nd July	 1951	 as it purported to do. It was urged that the provision as to excluding holidays observed by courts subordinate to the High Court which obtained in paragraph 16 above did not apply when the period was extended up to a particular date. It would apply only if the period was extended by a particular number of days when for the purpose of the computation of those days the holidays would have to be excluded in the manner therein mentioned. The Uttar Pradesh Government having extended the period up to the	 30th June	 1951	 it was submitted that the award	 should have been made by the 30th June	 1951	 and	 not later and having been made on the 2nd July	 1951	 was therefore beyond time and invalid. This argument might well have prevailed but for the provisions of section 10 of the U. P. General Clauses Act	 1904. That section provides: " Where	 by any United Provinces Act	 any act or proceeding is directed or allowed to be done or taken in any court or office on a certain day or within a prescribed period	 then	 if the court or office is closed; on that day or the last day of the prescribed period	 the act or proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in due time if it is done or taken on the next day afterwards on which the court or office is open. " The Industrial Court was closed on the 30th June	 1951	 which was declared a public holiday. The 1st July	 1951	 was a Sunday and it was competent to the 'Industrial Court to pronounce its decision on the next 276 afterwards on which the Industrial Court was n	 i.e.	 the 2nd July	 1951. Prima facie therefore award which was pronounced on the 2nd July	 1	 was well within time. The only thing which Shri Khaitan counsel for the appellant urged before us therefore was that the Industrial Court was not a court within the meaning of section 10 of the U. P. General Clauses Act	 "The court" according to his submission could only be construed mean a court in the hierarchy of the civil courts the State and an Industrial Court did not fall hin that category. We are unable to accept this intention of Shri Khaitan. The Uttar Pradesh industrial Disputes Act	 1947	 was an Uttar Pradesh t. The General Order dated the 15th March	 1951	 which provided inter alia for the reference of the industrial dispute for adjudication and the manner in which it was to be adjudicated	 was promulgated by e U. P. Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by section 3 (d) of the Act. Paragraph (9) of the General Order provided for the decision ing pronounced by the Industrial Tribunal in open urt and we fail to understand how it could ever be ged that the Industrial Tribunal was not a court ithin the meaning of section 10 of the U. P. General lauses Act. If the Industrial Tribunal was thus a ourt within the meaning of section 10 of the U. P. General Clauses Act the court was closed on the 30th ane	 1951	 as also on the 1st July	 1951	 and the decion could be pronounced by the Industrial Court on i.e next day afterwards on which it was open	 i.e.	 on ne 2nd July	 1951. In our opinion therefore the ecision which was pronounced on the 2na July	 951	 'was well within time and was valid and binding ' in the parties. The above decision is determinative of this appeal	 and the appeal will therefore stand dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. Agent for the respondents and the intervener: C. P. Lal.

The time prescribed for making an award under the U. P. 	 expired on the 9th June	 1951. The Government extended the period up to 30th June	 1951. The 30th June was a public holiday and 1st July was a Sunday and the Industrial Tribunal pronounced its award on the 2nd July: Held	 that an Industrial Tribunal to which a dispute is referred under the U. P. 	 is a " Court " within the meaning of section 10 of the U.P. General Clauses Act	 1904	 and	 as the 30th June and 1st July were holidays	 the award pronounced on the 2nd July was not invalid on the ground that it was not pronounced within the period fixed. 273