Judgment : 1. Though these petitions are listed for hearing on I.A., with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, are finally heard and disposed of by this order. 2. Sri.Y.V.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, is correct in his submission that the petitioners when arraigned as II Party before the Industrial Tribunal at Bangalore in I.D.No.5/2005, had opposed the claim by filing a counter statement interalia advancing a plea that 'gangmen' is different from a 'temporary bill distributor'. In other words, had stated that the respondents 1 to 31 were 'bill distributors/ meter readers' and not 'gangmen' and therefore are not entitled to the benefit of absorption as probationary mazdoors in terms of the settlement -Ex.W16. In that view of the matter, there was no occasion for the Industrial Tribunal to record at paragraph 17 of the impugned award that the petitioners had not disputed the fact that respondents 1 to 31 were engaged as 'gangmen'. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 31 that out of the said respondents, five have since been selected in the subsequent recruitment and the remaining 26 are to be treated as 'gangmen' and not as 'temporary bill distributors / meter readers', cannot be countenanced. 4. A bare perusal of the counter statement filed by the petitioners, when arraigned as II party before the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.5/2005, a specific plea is advanced that 'gangmen' and 'temporary bill distributors' are two different categories. In Ex.W16, memorandum of settlement under Sec.2(p) r/w Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, entered into between the KPTCL and the KPTC Employees' Union, is over regularization by way of taking on probation as mazdoors, 7528 gangmen. If that is so, it was for the parties to place before court, the names of 7528 persons treated as 'gangmen' for the purpose of being absorbed on probation. That is not forthcoming from the material on record. Sri.Y.V.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that there has been a mistake in not placing on record that material and be extended an opportunity to do so. 5. Exfacie, the premise on which the Industrial Tribunal concluded that the workmen were in fact gangmen, is based upon an alleged undisputed fact which is an incorrect premise, obviously without application of mind to the plea advanced in the counter statement filed by the petitioners. 5. Exfacie, the premise on which the Industrial Tribunal concluded that the workmen were in fact gangmen, is based upon an alleged undisputed fact which is an incorrect premise, obviously without application of mind to the plea advanced in the counter statement filed by the petitioners. In that view of the matter, it cannot but be said that the award impugned suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. 6. Since the petitioner - BESCOM admittedly committed a mistake in not placing on record relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of the fact that there is a difference between 'gangmen' and a 'bill distributor/meter reader', deserves to be saddled with cost in the event of remand of the proceeding, more so in the light of the fact that the proceeding before the Industrial Tribunal lasted for 7 years when ample opportunities were extended to the petitioners to conduct the proceeding in a manner known to law and to place material on record. 7. Although Sri. Srinivasa, learned counsel for respondents, draws my attention to Ex.W47, which is a list of names along with their designation and other particulars of the persons appointed as bill distribution boys, there is nothing in that document to, primafacie, establish that they were treated as gangmen or did fall within the 7528 gangmen sought to be absorbed under Ex.W16. 8. Without going into the merit or demerit of that submission and keeping that open, ends of justice would be met by remitting the proceeding to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication afresh by extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties to adduce evidence in addition to what is on record and thereafter to pass an award in accordance with law and answer the question as to whether the respondents 1 to 31 are to be treated as gangmen and if entitled to the benefit of the settlement - Ex.W16. Regard being had to the fact that proceeding has been languishing before the Industrial Tribunal for more than 7 years and this petition was filed on 5/11/2013, it would be necessary to direct the Industrial Tribunal to conclude the proceeding by 30/11/2013. 9. In the result, these petitions are allowed in part. The award dt. 13/7/2012 in I.D.No.5/2005 - Annex.A is quashed and the proceeding remitted for consideration afresh, as noticed supra. 9. In the result, these petitions are allowed in part. The award dt. 13/7/2012 in I.D.No.5/2005 - Annex.A is quashed and the proceeding remitted for consideration afresh, as noticed supra. Parties, since represented by learned counsel, are directed to be present before the Industrial Tribunal on 2/9/2013. Petitioners are directed to pay cost of Rs.3,000/- for each of the 26 contesting respondents on the next date of hearing before the Industrial Tribunal. Registry to forthwith forward the papers to the Industrial Tribunal. 10. I.A. Nos. 1/13 and 2/13 are dismissed as unnecessary.