ORDER: The petitioners, 37 in number, have filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to reinstate the petitioners pending payment of backwages etc. as per the award dated 16.5.1988 made by the second respondent in I.D.No.37 of 1985 to 74 of 1985. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners would submit that they have been working in the first respondent Textile Mills for a number of years as casual workers continuously without any blemish; that they were denied employment without any reason whatsoever; that thereafter a settlement was arrived at between the Union in which the petitioners were the Members and the Management on 13.10.1980 with regard to their service conditions and payment of wages in which though the daily wages were increased, the Management did not implement the settlement and hence the matter was referred to arbitration and an Award had been passed on 18.8.1981 by the Arbitrator specifically holding that the casual workers should be absorbed into the permanent strength and that occupation wages should be paid to the workers who were doing the job of permanent workers in stages; that unfortunately, the Management called for interview outsiders and selected them without including the names of the petitioners even in the interview list; that the petitioners raised an industrial dispute and the same was referred by the Government for arbitration to the second respondent and even though the Management was an active participant to most part of the proceeding before the Labour Court, still, subsequently, it remained ex parte consequent to which, the Award dated 16.5.1988 had been passed holding the non-employment of the petitioners as not justified and that they be reinstated with continuity of service on full back wages and with other attendant benefits and with the cost of Rs.100 each. 3. 3. The further case of the petitioners as per the pleading is that they caused the lawyer’s notice on 11.1.1992 to the Management, which had then become a unit of the Tamil Nadu Government Joint Management and in reply dated 12.3.1992, the Management made it known that the Unit was under closure at the time of Award and the Government by G.O.Ms.No.253, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadhi (C.II), dated 15.10.1991 suspended all kinds of awards till the periods stated therein since the first respondent Establishment has been declared as a ‘Relief Undertaking’ as per the Tamil Nadu Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1969; that the Government by original Notification in G.O.Ms.No.313, dated 24.10.1990 have declared that the object of the Tamil Nadu Relief Undertaking (Special Provisions) Act, 1969 is declared to be enabling the Government to make special provisions for a limited period in respect of industrial relations, financial obligations and other like matters in relation to industrial undertakings, the running of which is considered essential as a measure of preventing or of providing relief against unemployment; that this enactment is a beneficial legislation intended to mitigate the sufferings of the workers of unemployment due to closure; that the Industrial Disputes Act becomes applicable excepting Chapter V-A and Sec.33-C; that Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act deals with ‘Lay Off and Retrenchment’ and Sec.33-C deals with ‘Recovery of Money due from an employer’ and that it is clear that an employee can pursue the remedy in Labour Court and the interests of the Tamil Nadu Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act is to relieve the employer from financial burden. 4. 4. In the concluding phase of the pleading, the petitioners would submit that they have been suffering non-employment for quite some time and their juniors have been taken in by the Management while the petitioners have been stranded in the streets; that the argument of the Management that any award prior to the date of Notification suspended by the Government is too technical and would be contrary to the spirit of the enactment; that the mills have also gathered momentum and no prejudice will be caused to the Management, if the workers are reinstated; that even the legitimate and minimum request has been turned down by the Management; that under these circumstances, the petitioners would further contend that they are left with no option but to approach this Court with the prayer to direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioners pending payment of back wages etc. as per the award dated 16.5.1988 made in I.D.Nos.37 of 1985 to 74 of 1985. 5. as per the award dated 16.5.1988 made in I.D.Nos.37 of 1985 to 74 of 1985. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it would be submitted that the first respondent Mill is very old with ante-dated machineries and the work load and productivity being very low, has employed larger work force than necessary; that due to heavy absenteeism, they engaged casual workers on contract basis and paid them daily consolidated wages; that a substantial number of machineries were found mere junk and rendering the casual contract workers surplus and they were not able to be employed during the first half of 1980; that the Industrial Dispute raised by the Trade Union ended in a settlement under Sec.12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 13.10.1980; that an Award had been passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour on 10.8.1981 according to which 32 vacancies have to be filled up with the daily paid casual workers and their daily consolidated wages should also be increased by Rs.2 for every six months and on completion of three years from 15.8.1981, they should be paid occupational wages; that neither the Sec.12(3) settlement dated 13.10.1980 nor the informal arbitration Award dated 10.8.1981 was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette as required under Sec.10-A read with Sec.17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the non-publication of the said settlement and the award in the Government Gazette rendered the award unenforceable; that however, the first respondent selected 32 workers from among the daily paid casuals on the basis of seniority-cum-efficiency-cum-suitability much to the acceptance of the Trade Unions as fair and just; that the A.I.T.U.C. Union alone raised an industrial dispute questioning the mode of selection before Conciliation Officer, Madurai and simultaneously preferred a complaint to the Arbitrator and both the authorities rejected the contention of the Union and then at their instigation, Sec.2-A petitions have been filed independently before the Conciliation Officer, which came up for consideration in I.D.Nos.37 of 1985 to 73 of 1985 and 82 of 1985. 6. 6. The first respondent would further submit that the industrial dispute raised under Sec.2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is not sustainable in law; that the Sec.12(3) settlement dated 13.8.1980 and the informal arbitration award dated 10.8.1981 had given quietus to the dispute by resolving it fully and finally and under the terms of the said Award, 32 casuals were selected for absorption by the first respondent; that if any party is aggrieved of the settlement, it should approach the appropriate Government under Sec.36-A of the Industrial Disputes act to refer the question of doubt or interpretation to a Labour Court or Tribunal but no industrial dispute can be raised as to the interpretation of an Award; that the Government could also sanction prosecution under Sec.29 of the Industrial Disputes Act against the party in breach; that without following any such remedy, the A.I.T.U.C raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer and simultaneously preferred a complaint to the Arbitrator, which were rightly rejected by those authorities resulting in individual casual workmen raising the dispute under Sec.2-A of the law and such a course of action is clearly against judicial precedents. 7. 7. The further submission are that in the Labour Court, the first respondent duly filed his counter in all the cases but unfortunately the mill was closed on 25.11.1986 and the closure continued till 22.7.1990; that the Government of Tamil Nadu had taken steps to reactivate the Mill under a Joint Management but since it was found that the Mill could not sustain large work force, a settlement was concluded on 5.4.1990 and the work force was reduced by 350 in two stages thereby rendering without any scope for these petitioners to be absorbed; that since the Mill remained closed from 25.11.1986 to 22.7.1990, the Directors and Executives of the first respondent had to face a number of prosecutions in various Courts and they could not pursue the matter before the second respondent; that since more than 1000 permanent workmen were thrown out, there is no point in pursuing the cases of 38 casual contract labour and hence the first respondent or its counsel could not proceed with those individual cases resulting in an ex parte Award passed on 16.5.1988; that since the Award had been passed without consideration of any legal issues, it cannot be taken as an Award passed on merit; that the impugned exparte Award dated 16.5.1988 is arbitrary, unenforceable and contrary to judicial precedents; that a single writ petition is not sustainable in law and that the first respondent was not aware of the publication of the ex parte award or the filing of this writ petition before this Court owning to long closure of the mill and change in the Management. On such and some other grounds, the counter filed on behalf of the first respondent would pray for dismissing the writ petition and to remand the matter to the second respondent. 8. During arguments, besides emphasizing what has been pleaded in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that there is no question of remand for recording the evidence of the first respondent and passing an order on merit since the moment ex parte award is passed in accordance with the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act and the said Award having been published in the Government Gazette, the Labour Court becomes functus officio; that the petitioner workers caused lawyer’s notice and the respondents have to implement the Award and reinstate the petitioners with back wages. 9. 9. In reply, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent would submit that the writ petition itself is not maintainable; that whatever Award has been passed by the Labour Court, the Industrial Disputes Act provides for its implementation; that Sec.33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act provides for recovery of money due from an employer; that initiation of proceedings before the Labour Court, filing an application under the Industrial Disputes Act itself is not maintainable; that this a case where the settlement is arrived at under Sec.12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 13.10.1980 and under the settlement, parties agreed to refer the matter regarding absorption of casual workers to Arbitration and Arbitrator also passed the Award on 10.8.1981; that 32 vacancies have been identified and there are some more workers but they have not been identified by the Award; that under Sec.17 and Sec.17-A of the Industrial Disputes act, the Labour Court has got jurisdiction only after the Award got published, and that since the award has not been published it cannot come into force. 10. The other submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 are that even according to the petitioners, the writ was filed on 25.8.1992, but the Management, as per the reply notice dated 12.3.1992 has made it clear that it had become sick and hence the Tamil Nadu Relief Undertaking (Special Provisions) Act became applicable; that the Award passed under the Industrial Disputes Act and the writ petition are different concepts; that the award has become final and that the Arbitration Award was not published and hence it has become non est in law. With these arguments, the learned counsel for the first respondent would pray for dismissing the above writ petition. 11. With these arguments, the learned counsel for the first respondent would pray for dismissing the above writ petition. 11. Assessing the merit of the case based on the facts and circumstances as pleaded by parties to the writ petition and having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, what is disclosed is that as early as on 16.5.1988, an Award had been passed by the second respondent Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court, Madurai in I.D.Nos.37 of 1985 to 74 of 1985 declaring that the non-employment of the petitioners is not justified and that they are entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and attendant benefits coupled with a cost of Rs.100 each and the petitioners have now come forward to file the writ petition praying to direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioners pending payment of backwages etc. as per the Award dated 16.5.1988 made by the second respondent in I.D.Nos.37 of 1985 to 74 of 1985. It further comes to be known that the said Award passed by the second respondent had also been published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 14.9.1988 and since the first respondent Management did not implement the Award, all the petitioners, numbering 37, have come forward to file this writ petition seeking the relief extracted here before. 12. Further it is seen that an Interlocutory Application No.37 of 1985 had been filed before the second respondent in I.D.No.74 of 1985 to condone the delay of 1693 days in filing a petition for setting aside the ex parte order, by the first respondent Management and for reasons assigned, that petition had been dismissed by the second respondent by order dated 5.9.1994. 13. In these circumstances, the argument put forth on the part of the first respondent Management as against the claim of the petitioners that the Mill was closed for five years and in the meantime, the Government entered into a joint venture and there had been change of management, that there are other statutory provisions in the Industrial Disputes Act for implementation of the Award and a writ petition before the writ Court is not the answer and that the award had not been published in the Gazette etc., being either false or flimsy, they are not accepted. From the averments it is gathered that the first respondent Management, who were contesting the said Award at the initial stage having filed even the counter before the second respondent, on certain unacceptable reasons, knowingly, and wilfully have refrained from prosecuting their case, as a result of which an ex parte award had come to be passed by the second respondent based on which the petitioners are now claiming the relief sought for in the writ petition. 14. The Award is there only for being implemented. But, it is unfortunate that in spite of having been published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, the Award has not been implemented, probably since the third respondent Government has entered into the joint venture with the first respondent and hence the petitioners have rightly come up with the writ petition seeking direction for reinstatement as per the Award dated 16.5.1988. It cannot be argued that because there is a statutory course provided for implementation of such awards, no writ petition of this sort will lie since such argument does not always hold good. It is upto the High Court to decide whether in the circumstances of the case, it is desirable to entertain or not. This is one of the fit cases wherein the writ petition could be filed and such relief sought for. There is absolutely no reason much less in a tangible manner assigned on the part of the first respondent nor one exists in the circumstances of the case to deny the claim of the petitioners and the only course open for this Court is to allow the writ petition granting the relief as sought for by the petitioners. 15. In result, the above writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The first respondent is hereby directed to reinstate the petitioners pending payment of backwages as per the Award dated 16.5.1988 made by the second respondent in I.D.Nos.37 of 1985 to 74 of 1985, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 16. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.