Judgment 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is a Management. They are seeking to set aside the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu in M.A.No.194 of 2011 in I.D.No.52 of 1993 dated 25.08.2012. 2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal had set aside its exparte order and restored the main dispute viz., I.D.No.52 of 1993 on file to be dealt with on merits. 3. When the matter came up on 01.10.2012, this Court directed notice to be issued to the contesting respondent. Accordingly, the contesting respondent had entered appearance through counsel. 4. Heard the arguments of Mr. S. Ravindran, learned counsel representing for M/s. T.S. Gopalan and Company for the petitioner and Mr. R. Jaikumar, learned counsel representing for M/s. T. Fennwalter Associates for the second respondent. 5. The writ petition has a checkered history. It is seen from the records that the second respondent and the Tribunal exposed the case of the petitioner management which they are fighting in different forums. They went before the appropriate authority in the year 1984 seeking payment of their full salary from the petitioner management which resulted in the writ petition being filed in W.P.No.7273 of 1988 by the Management. The said writ petition was dismissed on 10.08.1989. Subsequently, the matter was mentioned on 23.08.1999 before the Division Bench of this Court and at that stage, this Court observed that the workmen will have raised a dispute as there was a master and servant relationship between their members and the management. Thereafter, the miscellaneous petition was dismissed by the Division Bench. 6. Subsequently, an industrial dispute was raised in respect of 432 workers before the Conciliation Officer. On a failure report being sent to the State Government, the State Government has issued an order of reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, directing the Industrial Tribunal to decide the question as to whether the non-employment of 432 workers whose names are mentioned in the orders of reference was justified, the relief if any in terms of money. 7. The Industrial Tribunal registered the dispute as I.D.No.52 of 1993 and issued notice to both sides. 8. Since the second respondent Union did not file any claim statement, the dispute was dismissed for want of prosecution on 05.05.1994. 7. The Industrial Tribunal registered the dispute as I.D.No.52 of 1993 and issued notice to both sides. 8. Since the second respondent Union did not file any claim statement, the dispute was dismissed for want of prosecution on 05.05.1994. It was thereafter one Panneerselvam claiming to be the Vice President of the second respondent Union filed an application seeking to set aside the exparte award dated 05.05.1994. Since there was a delay in filing the application, an exclusion delay application was also filed. It was stated by him that at the relevant time, the Union authorised representative had gone on vacation and the application filed by the Union was taken on file as M.A.No.168 of 1984. The delay was only 18 days. The Tribunal, by order dated 30.08.1995, dismissed the said miscellaneous application which gave raise to the second respondent filing a writ petition before this Court being W.P.No.10206 of 1996. The said writ petition came to be allowed on 11.03.2011 and this Court, after condoning the delay, directed the other application viz., M.A.No.194 of 2011 to be taken on file and to be dealt with on merits. 9. On this application, the Management filed a counter affidavit dated 13.09.2011. Though the said counter affidavit questioned the relationship of the workmen with the Management, it is unnecessary to go into the said issue as that issue will have to be decided in the main dispute. It is suffice to state that after the application for condoning the delay was ordered by this Court, the other miscellaneous application was taken up after 15 long years and the Union was not interested in pursuing the claim. They were at default at several instances including not vigilantly pursuing the writ petition which was filed for condoning the delay. 10. The additional counter affidavit was also filed by the Management stating that the dismissal for default was made on 30.08.1995. The writ petition was filed only in August 1996. In 2004, the writ petition was directed to be dismissed for default and once again after a delay of 1200 days, the writ petition was restored and therefore, the Union was lethargic. The Director of the Company also examined herself as R.W.1. 11. The writ petition was filed only in August 1996. In 2004, the writ petition was directed to be dismissed for default and once again after a delay of 1200 days, the writ petition was restored and therefore, the Union was lethargic. The Director of the Company also examined herself as R.W.1. 11. The Labour Court, on the basis of the pleadings and evidence let in, held that since the delay was already condoned and there was sufficient reason adduced for not pursuing the matter at the relevant time and therefore, it was a fit case where the application will have to be allowed. 12. Though the Management referred to the Judgment of this Court in W.P.Nos.23713 to 23735 of 2009 dated 26.04.2011 [C.G. Balaji and others V. Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court, Chennai], the Tribunal distinguished the same. 13. Even before this Court Mr. S. Ravindran, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon another order passed in W.P.Nos.22938 to 22942 and 22572 of 2009 [V.C. Purushothaman V. Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court, Chennai and others] dated 25.04.2011, but however, in that case, the question that arose for consideration was whether the application filed by the workmen to condone the delay of 2280 days in filing the application has to be set aside or not. This Court held that not only there was a delay, the reason adduced by the workmen in support of the said application could not have been believed. 14. In the present case, already this Court has condoned the delay in filing the application for restoration. Therefore, the only question that was whether there was any sufficient cause for being absent. 15. In the affidavit filed in support of the miscellaneous petition, the petitioner Union had stated that the second respondent Union was very sick and he was under the impression that the claim statement has been filed. Thereafter, the other authorised representative Mr. Fenn Walter, Fredrick Castro Walter and Srinivasan had gone out on vacation and they had instructed him to file the claim statement. 16. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that immediately after the application was filed, their claim statement was also filed before the Tribunal and from the seal found in the docket of the claim statement, it is seen that it was also received by the Tribunal on 23.06.1994. 17. 16. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that immediately after the application was filed, their claim statement was also filed before the Tribunal and from the seal found in the docket of the claim statement, it is seen that it was also received by the Tribunal on 23.06.1994. 17. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the interlocutory order passed by the Tribunal in restoring I.A.No.52 of 1993. First of all, when a reference was made under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Tribunal is bound to deal with the points of reference made therein and pass orders on merits. The dismissal for default is never contemplated under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Even otherwise, in so far as the application in M.A.No.194 of 2011 is concerned, the delay was condoned by this Court by setting aside the order and once a delay is condoned, then, the other issue of restoration has become automatic. Therefore, at this stage, to nullify the restoration of the I.D. will cause hardship to the petitioner Union. 18. Though Mr. S. Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Union has been lethargic and has unnecessarily delayed, this could be adjudicated for more than 20 years, it is an aspect which the Tribunal had to answer any time at the passing of the orders on the merits of the cases and while granting the relief. At this stage, this Court need not take note of the same, as long delay or inefficiency in prosecuting the dispute will also have a bearing in the award to be passed. 19. The Writ Petition stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.