Judgment :- Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner seeks to quash the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, in I.D.No.25 of 1997 dated 21.3.2002. 2. The affidavit filed in support of the writ application and the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent are perused. This Court has heard both sides. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner society is under the control of the Director of Handlooms and Textiles; that it exists only for its members to provide sustained gainful occupation; that a few domestic weavers of the petitioner society, who were not employees of the petitioner society, through the second respondent Union raised an industrial dispute claiming increase in basic wages and grant of dearness allowance; that the demand was referred for adjudication to the first respondent in I.D.No.25 of 1997; that the second respondent filed a claim statement stating that the basic wages paid to the employees of the petitioner society were very low, and it should be increased by 50% and also along with the dearness allowance to the employees in terms of G.O.No.39 dated 18.1.1994, which was applicable to the employment in Handloom Silk Weavers Industry in the State of Tamil Nadu; that the petitioner society filed a counter affidavit in extenso; and that the first respondent on enquiry has passed the award, which is being assailed in this writ petition. 4. 4. Added further, the learned Counsel that the second respondent Union raised an industrial dispute which it cannot raise for two reasons; that firstly, it has not shown its locus standi to raise such a dispute; that no evidence was brought forth to prove how many members the Union had and how many members favoured by way of a resolution that such an industrial dispute has to be put forth; that absolutely there was no evidence in that regard; that the tribunal had not adverted to that point; that secondly, the second respondent union could not make out a case under Sec.10 of the Industrial Disputes Act; that the members of the second respondent union fall within the definition of employees as found in Tamil Nadu Handloom Workers (Conditions of Employment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981, which came into force on 12.3.1982; that Sec.52 of the said Act would clearly indicate that any dispute between the employee and the employer under the said enactment should be as one treated under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act; that a G.O. came to be passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu stating that the cooperative societies are exempted from the operation of the said Act; that under such circumstances, the members of the second respondent union who fall within the definition of employee under the said Act cannot bring forth any industrial dispute invoking Sec.10 of the Industrial Disputes Act; that apart from that, the Industrial Tribunal has not taken into consideration whether the demands made by the members of the Union could be met in view of the financial situation; that lastly, the G.O. what has been applied by the tribunal for passing such an award, is not applicable to the present facts of the case, and hence, the award has got to be set aside. 5. 5. In answer to the above contentions, the learned Counsel for the second respondent would submit that the second respondent is a recognised Union; that the Union consisting of its members, in its representative capacity has brought forth the said dispute; that the beneficiaries of the demand is of the entire working class of the society; that the writ petitioner, who neither participated in the conciliation proceedings nor raised any objection in that regard, should not be permitted to raise the same at this stage; that the contention that it is not an industrial dispute which would fall under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act has got to be discountenanced for the simple reason that the members of the Union do not claim any benefit under the enactment of the year 1981; that so long as they do not claim any benefit under 1981 enactment, they should come within Sec.52 of the said Act; that, in the instant case, they have not claimed any benefit under that Act; but, they claimed that they would come under the Minimum Wages Act; that every member of the second respondent union fall within the definition of employee under the Minimum Wages Act; that so long as the benefits under the Minimum Wages Act are not given, they are entitled to raise a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, and it is well within the provisions of the Act; that so far as the other two contentions are concerned, they are baseless and unsound, and hence, the award of the tribunal has got to be sustained. 6. After careful consideration of the rival submissions made, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award has got to be set aside on the simple ground that the Tribunal has not properly determined the question whether the second respondent has got locus standi to bring forth such an industrial dispute. 7. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the second respondent has not examined any witness, nor had they brought forth any documents to satisfy their locus standi to raise such dispute. A reading of the counter statement of the petitioner herein before the tribunal would clearly reveal that there was a denial as to the locus standi of the second respondent union to raise such a dispute. A reading of the counter statement of the petitioner herein before the tribunal would clearly reveal that there was a denial as to the locus standi of the second respondent union to raise such a dispute. That apart, it has been categorically stated therein that a substantial section of its members are neither members of the second respondent union, nor they had authorised the union to raise the dispute. In such circumstances, it was a matter of evidence which should have been produced to satisfy the tribunal as to how many members the union consists of and how many members had authorised the union to raise the dispute. It can be well stated that the second respondent has miserably failed to produce any evidence in that regard. It remains to be stated that the Industrial Tribunal has not adverted to that relevant question in its proper perspective, but has, in a rambling way, referred to the last point urged by the union and would say that the union was consisting of members of the working class of the society, and hence, it has got to be taken that the second respondent union has got locus standi to raise an industrial dispute. This Court is not satisfied with the view taken by the tribunal, since the said point was neither considered nor discussed in the proper perspective by the tribunal and not answered properly also. Hence, without going into the merits or otherwise of the other contentions, it would be suffice to pass an order of remittal. 8. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, setting aside the order of the first respondent, and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent, the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to give opportunity to the second respondent to adduce evidence in that regard and decide the matter in accordance with law within a period of two months here from. No costs.