IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 3.11.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P. No.28475 of 2007 The Management of Tamilnadu Petroproducts Limited, Manali Express Highway, Chennai.68, rep. By its Executive –HR. ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Chennai. 2.The General Secretary, Tamilnadu Petroproducts Employees Union, Manali Express Highway, Chennai.68. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records connected with M.A.No. 28 of 2007 in D.No. 12 of 2007 on the file of the first respondent, i.e., Industrial Tribunal at Chennai and to quash the interim order dated 14.8.2007 made therein. For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Mohan For Respondents : Mrs. K.V. Ananthakrishnan-R2 O R D E R The management has filed this writ petition challenging the interim order dated 14.8.2007 passed in M.A.No. 28 of 2007 in D.No. 12 of 2007 by the Industrial Tribunal, at Chennai. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ By G.O.Ms.No.174, dated 22.7.2007, the Government referred the dispute of the Union to the Industrial Tribunal and that was numbered as I.D.No. 12 of 2007. M.P.No. 28 of 2007 was filed by the Union for interim relief with effect from 1.1.2005. 3. The management filed a counter to M.P.No. 28 of 2007 and sought for the following relief as well:- " It is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass an Award in the matter exceeding the revision of conditions of service as benefits accepted by nearly 50% strength of the workmen as on date based upon which they have signed 18(1) Settlements, to all the workmen by means of an Award of this Hon'ble Court or pass such suitable Award in the circumstances of the present case." 4. The Industrial Tribunal after hearing both sides by the order dated 14.8.2007 granted the following interim relief:- " In the light of the above discussions and on consideration of available material evidence on record and documents adduced by both sides and taking note of the attendant circumstances of the case and in as much as the applicant's/petitioner union has restricted its claim of interim relief as per Memorandum of Settlement Ex.M.14 series and since the applicant's union has given up the claim of Rs.5000/- as an interim relief, this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the applicant's union is entitled to get the benefits as per Memorandum of Settlement Ex.M14 series as an interim relief and this Tribunal exercising its inherent power and discretion directs the respondent to extent the benefits flowing from Ex.M14 series as an interim relief and this Tribunal exercising its inherent power and discretion directs the respondent to extend the benefits flowing from Ex.M.14 series settlement to the applicant's union/employees within a period of two weeks from this date of order passed by this Tribunal and the respondent/ management as a condition precedent should comply with this order so as to enable it to participate in the adjudication proceedings and the point is answered accordingly. In the result, it is ordered that the applicant's union is entitled to get the benefits as per Memorandum of Settlement Ex.M.14 series as an interim relief and it is further ordered by this Tribunal exercising its inherent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ power and discretion that the respondent is to extend the benefits flowing from Ex.M14 series settlement to the applicant's union/employees within a period of two weeks from today and it is further ordered that the respondent/management as a condition precedent should comply with this order so as to enable it to participate in the adjudication proceedings and the application is allowed on above terms. No costs." 5. The interim order of the Tribunal is challenged by the management stating that though the Union sought for a sum of Rs.5,000/- as interim relief based on the memorandum of settlement Ex.M.14 series, the Tribunal ordered that the employees will be entitled to the interim relief in terms of the settlement Ex. M14 series. This according to the writ petitioner/ management will prejudice the right of the management to canvass their plea that the relief sought for in the I.D., if at all, can be granted to all the employees and that will be only in terms of Section 18(1) settlement. In any event, the interim relief goes beyond the relief sought for by the Union. Pending writ petition, interim order was passed by this Court as follows:- " All these issues will have to be determined only in the main writ petition. The only question at present is what should be the interim relief to be granted. The trade Union had filed two applications-M.P.Nos.3 and 4 of 2007 in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 in W.P.No. 28475 of 2007 to vacate the interim stay granted by this Court in M.P.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2007 in W.P.No.28475 of 2007. This Court is not inclined to vacate the interim order. At the same time, pending the writ petition, the workmen in whose favour there is an interim award should get some relief. In such circumstances, the interim stay already granted in M.P.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2007 in W.P.No. 28475 of 2007 is made absolute on condition that the petitioner-management pays a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to each of the workers, represented by the respondent-Union, as an adhoc measure pending final determination in the writ petition. This exercise shall be carried out by the writ petitioner- management on or before 13.1.2008. Accordingly, M.P.Nos.3 and 4 of 2007 in M.P.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2007 in W.P.No. 28475 of 2007 is dismissed." 6. At the time of final hearing of the writ petition, it is conceded by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as the respondent/union that the Tribunal has proceeded with the adjudication of the dispute on merits. It is conceded that witnesses have been examined and the adjudication is in the final stage. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. Mr. Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the writ petitioner stated that the findings of the Tribunal while passing the interim order, which is under challenge, should be eschewed by the Tribunal while deciding the main dispute. Further, payments have been made pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 19.12.2007. The respondent- union would not be entitled to any further payment beyond what has been directed by this Court. 8. Mr. K.V.Ananthakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondents states that in addition to the sum of Rs.10,000/- as directed by this Court on 19.12.2007, there have been some more payments to employees and that should be continuously paid without prejudice to the final out come of the industrial dispute. 9. The short question which arises for consideration is whether the interim relief granted by the Tribunal can stand in the way of final adjudication of the dispute and whether the Court is called upon to go into the merits of the order passed by the Tribunal in the interim application. 10. This Court, by an order dated 19.12.2007, directed that the writ petitioner/ management should pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the workers as an adhoc measure. Since the adjudication of the dispute is now in the final stage, the payment made pending adjudication of the industrial dispute would be taken into account in the final order that may be passed by the Tribunal. No doubt, the observation of the Tribunal while passing the miscellaneous petition is purely interim in nature and such observation will not have any relevance while deciding the issue in the main industrial dispute. The writ petitioner/ management is entitled to canvass their plea that 18(1) settlement will be binding on all employees and that has to be gone into by the Tribunal on its own merits uninfluenced by the observation made in the interim order dated 14.8.2007. 11. In this case, a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been paid as per the order of this Court dated 19.12.2007. The learned counsel for the second respondent states that further payments have been made by the management on its own. The details of which is not clear at the moment and therefore, without going into that issue, it is clarified that the payment made pursuant to the order of this Court dated 19.12.2007 and any further payment as stated by the learned counsel for the second respondent shall continue to be paid wherever applicable. 12. In view of the above, the Industrial Tribunal is directed to dispose of the main I.D.No. 12 of 2007 as expeditiously as possible preferably before the end of December 2009. While disposing of the same, it is made clear that the Tribunal will not be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ influenced by any of the observation made in the interim order dated 14.8.2007. The parties are entitled to agitate their rival claims without any reservation before the Industrial Tribunal on all aspects of their claim. This writ petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ra 1. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Chennai. + 1 cc to M/s. K.V.Ananthakrishnan, SR No.58471 + 1 cc to Mr.S.Ramasubramanian & Associates, SR No.59052 WP No. 28475 of 2007 KSK (CO) RH (23.11.09) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/