Judgment :- 1. These Writ Petitions were filed by the management of Malini Textiles Private Limited challenging an ex-parte award dated 27.10.2003 passed in I.D.No.466 of 2002 in W.P.No.4771 of 2007, I.D.No.467 of 2002 dated 20.11.2003 in W.P.No.4772 of 2007, C.P.No.779 of 2004 dated 10.10.2006 in W.P.No.4773 OF 2007 and C.P.N.780 of 2004 dated 10.10.2006 in W.P.No.4774 OF 2007. 2. In W.P.No.4771 of 2007, the 2nd respondent (C.Rajaraman) raised an industrial dispute regarding his non-employment and the matter was taken before the Labour Court, Coimbatore as I.D.No.466 of 2002. The Labour Court set the petitioner management as ex parte on 14.10.2003 and thereafter, recording the statement of the workman, who examined himself as W.W.1 and marking the ESI card as Ex.W.1, passed exparte award. The exparte award was made on the basis of Ex.W.1 stating that the workman had worked in the Textile Mill. Therefore, he was eligible for the relief as claimed by him, namely reinstatement with backwages and other attendant benefits. 3. Since the exparte award was not complied with, the workman filed a Claim Petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act being C.P.NO.780 OF 2004 claiming backwages of a sum of Rs.72,147.78 and in that claim, the petitioner management claimed that there were altogether 17 cases and the case of Rajaram alone can be considered separately and the management was also contesting those cases and they are taking necessary steps to set aside the exparte award. The Labour Court on finding that the award made was not under challenge, computed the backwages of Rs.55,770/- for the period from 15.5.2001 to 18.2.2004 and the claim for bonus was rejected. Challenging these two exparte I.D.Numbers and the Claim Petitions, these Writ Petitions were filed, namely W.P.Nos.4771 to 4774 of 2007. They were admitted on 9.2.2007. Pending the Writ Petitions, this Court granted interim stay. Subsequently, interim stay was made to continue until further orders by an order dated 15.3.2007. On finding that the workman had not engaged counsel, this Court directed the Legal Aid Services authority to provide assistance to the contesting respondents. But, even before that, the petitioners have engaged their own counsel. 4. Similarly in W.P.No.4772 of 2007, the challenge is made to the exparte award made in favour of the contesting respondents V.Palaniammal, wife of Murugesan, in I.D.No.467 of 2002 vide award dated 20.11.2003. But, even before that, the petitioners have engaged their own counsel. 4. Similarly in W.P.No.4772 of 2007, the challenge is made to the exparte award made in favour of the contesting respondents V.Palaniammal, wife of Murugesan, in I.D.No.467 of 2002 vide award dated 20.11.2003. Even in that case, the said Palaniammal, on finding that the award was not complied with, filed a Claim Petition under Section 33-C (2) being C.P.No.779 of 2004. 5. In that Claim Petition, the management filed a counter resisting her claim on similar to the terms found in W.P.No.4774 OF 2007. Nevertheless, the Labour Court on finding that the award was not under challenge, computed a sum of Rs.75,900/- as due and payable. These Writ Petitions were admitted along with the other two Writ Petitions referred to above and interim orders were granted. 6. The 1st respondent though entered appearance have not filed any counter affidavit. When the matter came up, Mr.S.Ravindran appearing for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co., stated that the exparte award passed in two I.D.Numbers challenged in W.P.Nos.4771 and 4772 of 2007 cannot be said to be an exparte award, as the Labour Court did not keep in mind the relevant requirement under Rule 48(2) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Employment Rules. 7. In this context, a reference was made to the Division Bench judgment in Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras vs. the Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Madras and another reported in 1997(1) LLJ 923 , wherein in paragraphs 6 to 8, it was stated as follows: "6. Thus, from the aforesaid award, it is clear that the Labour Court has not considered the evidence on record. Even though the appellant remained absent, nevertheless, there was evidence on record. There were the statements of the case pleaded by the petitioner and the respondent. The Labour Court was required to consider and give reasons for passing the award in favour of the 2nd respondent workman. As no such reason is given, no even the facts of the case are stated, the award cannot at all be considered to be a speaking order, as such it cannot be sustained. The Presiding Officer is an Officer of the District Judge grade. He should not have decided the dispute in such a manner. There is no judicial application of mind of the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court. The Presiding Officer is an Officer of the District Judge grade. He should not have decided the dispute in such a manner. There is no judicial application of mind of the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court. Such exercise of jurisdiction causes great and incalculable damage to the parties and also to the administration of justice. The Presiding Officer would do better, if he discontinues such a habit of disposal of cases. 7. As the delay is also due to the fact that the appellant has failed to avail the opportunity afforded to it, it is a case, in which exemplary costs should be awarded. 8. We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the order dated February 8, 1996 passed in the Writ Petition, and allow the Writ Petition in the following terms. The award dated March 28, 1994 passed in I.D.309 of 1993 is quashed with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to be paid by the appellant to the 2nd respondent on or before September 18, 1996on which date the Labour Court, Madras shall call this case and restore the I.D. to its file. The appellants shall pay the aforesaid amount of costs. The Labour Court shall also try and decide the dispute, within six weeks from September 18, 1996. The C.M.P is disposed of.” 8. In the light of the same, he also referred to another judgment of this Court in Chairman and Manging Director, Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd., Chennai vs. the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Chennai reported in 2000 (3) LLN 1025, wherein P.Sadhasivam, J., (as he then was) after referring to the earlier Division Bench passed a similar order and in paragraph 8, it was observed as follows: "8. Sri D.Hariparanthaman, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3, while stating that the impugned award cannot be sustained in the eye of law, in view of the various decisions, has also stated that there was considerable delay in approaching this Court after passing of the impugned award, and hence he prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition. I am unable to accept the said contention. Though it is true that the exparte award was passed on 21 October 1992, it is stated that because of various reasons namely, change of the officers of the TAMIN, Law Officers, etc.,they could not file proper application to set aside the exparte award in time. I am unable to accept the said contention. Though it is true that the exparte award was passed on 21 October 1992, it is stated that because of various reasons namely, change of the officers of the TAMIN, Law Officers, etc.,they could not file proper application to set aside the exparte award in time. They filed application namely M.A.No.124 of 1996only in the month of April, 1996and the same was dismissed by the learned Tribunal on 8 November 1996. It is equally true that even thereafter, the TAMIN has not approached this Court within a reasonable time and only on 27 February 1998, filed the above Writ Petition. The way in which the TAMIL approached this Court after six years for questioning the exparte award cannot be appreciated. However, in view of the fact that TAMIL is an undertaking of the Government of Tamil Nadu and the question referred before the Industrial Tribunal is an important one and in the light of their stand in the counter-statement filed before the Conciliation Officer as well as the Industrial Tribunal and also of the fact that the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal is not a judicious order. I am of the view that the matter has to be disposed of on merits. In view of the fact that the TAMIN has not taken prompt steps at the appropriate stage, I am of the view that interest of justice would be met by awarding cost in favour of respondents 2 and 3 herein." 9. In the light of these legal precedents, the award in I.D.No.466 of 2002 dated 27.10.2003 and I.D.No.467 of 2002 dated 20.11.2003 are liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside, but however, on terms as directed by the Division Bench. The petitioner management is hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- in respect of each of the Industrial Dispute to the concerned contesting 2nd respondent M/s.C.Rajaram and V.Palaniammal. 10. It is on filing of a cost memo before the Labour Court, Coimbatore, the Labour Court will take up the Industrial Disputes, issue fresh notice to the parties and consider the dispute on merits after giving opportunities to them. 10. It is on filing of a cost memo before the Labour Court, Coimbatore, the Labour Court will take up the Industrial Disputes, issue fresh notice to the parties and consider the dispute on merits after giving opportunities to them. Since the dispute is of the year 2002, the Labour Court shall give preference to the disposal of I.D.Nos.466 and 467 of 2002 and in any event shall dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. Hence, the Writ Petition Nos.4771 and 4772 of 2007 stand allowed. 11. Since the Claim Petition Nos.779 and 780 of 2004 dated 10.10.2006 were based upon the two Industrial Disputes and the Industrial Disputes are exparte awards, and they have been set aside, the Claim Petitions cannot stand on their own as they are based upon the exparte award. Hence, the Writ Petition Nos.4773 and 4774 of 2007 will stand allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.