ORDER Ajit Singh, J. 1. By this petition, filed under Articles 226 and of the Constitution, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing of award dated 14-2-2008, Annexure P1, passed in Reference No. 3/2007 by the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Tribunal, Indore (in short, "the Tribunal") whereby it has answered the reference in favour of Respondents. 2. Petitioner, Madhya Pradesh Hasta Shilpa Hathkargha Vikas Nigam Maryadit, is an instrumentality of the State and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of cloth and handicraft. By order dated 27-8-1994 it appointed the Respondents in "clear vacancies" in the pay scale of Rs. 750-945 for a period of one year on the posts of Peon/chowkidar. These appointments were renewed every year up to 30-4-2006. The Respondents, thus, continuously worked for about 12 years in regular pay scales, but their appointments were not renewed from 1-5-2006 onward and instead they were asked to execute bonds on stamp paper of Rs. 50/- each, as per letter marked as Ex.P5. If they desired further employment, the form of bond indicates that Respondents were offered further employment on consolidated salary of Rs. 4,280/- per month and not regular pay scale and their appointments were to be treated as "Contractual employment". Since the Respondent did not execute the bonds, they were not paid salary from 1-5-2006 despite their attendance being marked up to November, 2006. The Petitioner also treated the services of Respondents terminated from 1-5-2006 though it did not pass any formal written order in this regard. Aggrieved with the Petitioner's conduct, the Respondents raised and dispute stating that their status, security, tenure of employment and the terms and conditions of service cannot be unilaterally changed by compelling them to execute bonds for fresh appointment. 3. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bhopal, in exercise of powers delegated to him by the State Government, referred the dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Tribunal for adjudication, the term of reference was as under: D;k Jh vkseizdk'k ,ao vU; 43 dks fnukad 1&5&2006 ls osru dk Hkqxrku ugha dj rFkk lsok 'krksZa esa ifjorZu dj vuqca/k ij dk;Z djus gsrq vuqca/k dk izLrko oS/k ,oa mfpr gS \ ;fn ugha rks og fdl lgk;rk ds ik= gS rFkk bl laca/k esa fu;kstd dks D;k funsZ'k fn;s tkuk pkfg;s \ 4. On 15-10-2007 the Tribunal issued notices to the Petitioner as well as Respondents about the reference and fixed the case for 16-11-2007. On that date the Respondents submitted their statement of claim whereas the Petitioner submitted its statement of claim on 3-1-2008. The Tribunal on 3-1-2008 gave the Petitioner and Respondents one week time to file documents and affidavits in support of their respective claims. On 11-1-2008 the Petitioner and Respondents filed their affidavits and even exchanged the copies of affidavits. After this was done, the Tribunal as agreed heard the final arguments on 30-1-2008 and then passed the award on 14-2-2008. 5. The Tribunal by the impugned award has answered the reference in favour of Respondents. It has held that non-payment of wages to them from 1-5-2006 was illegal and since they had continuously worked on their posts in clear vacancies for nearly 12 years without any complaint, they acquired the status of permanent employees. The Tribunal has also held that the condition imposed by the Petitioner for executing bonds on stamp paper of Rs. 50/- each by the Respondents was not legal and proper and directed the Petitioner to reinstate them with full back wages from 1-5-2006. The Tribunal has further directed that Respondents will be paid wages as per pay scale and at the rate at which they were getting on 30-4-2006 with usual increments and allowances. 6. In the petition although number of grounds are mentioned for challenging the award, the learned Advocate General appearing for Petitioner, however, during the course of arguments has pressed the petition only on the ground that since the Tribunal has not recorded the evidence of witnesses, as required under Rule 10-B(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957 (in short, "the Rules"). The award is illegal. According to the learned Advocate General, the award has been passed against the principles of natural justice as the Petitioner was deprived of its right to cross-examine the witnesses of the Respondents whose affidavits were filed. The learned Counsel for Respondents, on the other hand, defended the legality of the award by submitting that the procedure adopted by the Tribunal is strictly in accordance with the rules. 7. Part III of the Rules deals with the powers and procedure of the Tribunal while adjudicating an industrial dispute referred to it under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 7. Part III of the Rules deals with the powers and procedure of the Tribunal while adjudicating an industrial dispute referred to it under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Rule 24 empowers the Tribunal with certain powers of the Civil Court one of which being power to receive evidence on affidavit as contained in Order 18, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, "the Code"). The object of this rule is to sub serve the larger purpose of cutting down the time of Tribunal in recording the evidence of witnesses. The procedure of examination of each witness referred to in Rule 10-B (6) is applicable only when the Tribunal decides to examine a witness. The examination of witness in every case is not mandatory because the Tribunal can receive evidence on affidavit. Under Order 18, Rule 4 of the Code as introduced by the Code of Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act examination of a witness in Court is necessary only for cross-examination. The examination-in-chief of a witness is contained in his affidavit. The object of the amendment is to save time of the Court. In the case at hand, as already mentioned above, the parties had filed affidavits of their witnesses in the Tribunal and even exchanged copies of the affidavits so filed. None of the Parties applied to the Tribunal for calling the witnesses whose affidavits were filed for cross-examination. In such a situation it was not necessary for the Tribunal to suo motu call the witnesses for examination before it. It, therefore, cannot be held that the Tribunal followed a wrong procedure by deciding the reference on affidavits without examining oral evidence and the Petitioner was victim of the violation of principles of natural justice. 8. Here we find it profitable to refer the decision of the Supreme Court in Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd. v. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd., AIR 2004 SC 355 wherein it has observed in the context of Order 18, Rule 4 of the Code that presence of a party during examination-in-chief is not imperative and an objection to any statement made in the affidavit can always be taken before the Court in writing whereupon the attention of the witness can be drawn while cross-examining him. In this case, the Supreme Court has also observed that there may be cases where a party may not feel the necessity of cross-examining a witness, examined on behalf of the other side, and the time of the court would not be wasted in examining such witness in open court. Thus, even according to the Supreme Court, cases can be decided on affidavits where a party may not feel the necessity of cross-examining a witness. 9. For these reasons, we find no merit in the petition, the petition is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.