Judgment : 1. Heard both sides. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner Union has filed this writ petition seeking to forbear the third respondent from conducting any enquiry over the subject matter of the suspension of the workman S.Rajendrane since the suspension and charge memo issued to him is the subject matter of industrial dispute in ID (T) No.25 of 2012 pending on the file of the first respondent Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Puducherry. 3. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 05.06.2013, granted interim order in M.P.No.1 of 2013, which reads as follows: “In view of the Government Order, passed in G.O.Ms.No.141, Labour Department, dated 23.8.2012 referring an industrial dispute relating to the suspension and charge memo against one Rajendran for adjudication, there shall be an order of interim injunction, restraining the third respondent from conducting any enquiry over the subject matter, without getting prior approval from the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.25 of 2012, under Section 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Notice.“ However, the interim order granted on 05.06.2013 was not communicated to the third respondent Management. 4. In those circumstances, the third respondent Management proceeded with the enquiry. According to the third respondent Management, after 05.06.2013, they sent six notices to the workman S.Rajendrane directing him to appear for enquiry. However, the workman neither appeared for enquiry nor intimated the Management about the interim order passed by this Court. Hence, they proceeded with exparte enquiry. When they decided about the punishment to be imposed on the workman, based on such enquiry, they issued notice to the workman. At that juncture, the workman replied through his counsel that the action of the Management is contrary to the interim order passed by this Court. 5. All these controversies are not relevant in view of the fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the third respondent Management that the Management would give up the exparte enquiry and would conduct a denova enquiry giving opportunity to the petitioner. 6. The aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the third respondent Management is recorded. 7. 5. All these controversies are not relevant in view of the fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the third respondent Management that the Management would give up the exparte enquiry and would conduct a denova enquiry giving opportunity to the petitioner. 6. The aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the third respondent Management is recorded. 7. When the matter was listed on 23.07.2014, it was represented by both counsel that no regular Presiding Officer is posted for the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court in Puducherry and the Judge in the cadre of District Judge is sitting only one day a week as an in-charge and therefore, no work really takes place. Hence, this Court passed the following order on 23.07.2014: “Both sides have jointly made a representation that there is no regular Presiding Officer for the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Pondicherry and a Judge, in the cadre of District Judge is given additional charge to handle the cases that are pending in the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Pondicherry and the Judge, who is holding the additional charge, is sitting only one day in a week. 2. To ascertain the aforesaid facts, the learned Government Pleader (Pondicherry) is directed to appear before this Court on 25.07.2014. 3. The learned counsel for the workman has submitted that since the writ petition was admitted on 05.06.2013 and the records were called for, the Labour Court is virtually not taking up the case citing that the records were sent to the High Court. In fact, the records are nothing but the notes papers. Even the claim statement is not filed by the petitioner Union in the said circumstances. 4. Hence, the Registry is directed to send back the received records forthwith without any delay and report the same to this Court on 25.07.2014. 5. Post this matter on 25.07.2014.” 8. Today, a memo dated 24.07.2014 is filed by the learned Government Pleader (Puducherry) stating that the Puducherry Government issued orders in G.O.No.23/2014 appointing one Thiru G.Dhanaraj, District Judge of Tamil Nadu, Judicial Service as Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Puducherry, on deputation basis to the Government of Puducherry, in the existing vacancy. 9. Today, a memo dated 24.07.2014 is filed by the learned Government Pleader (Puducherry) stating that the Puducherry Government issued orders in G.O.No.23/2014 appointing one Thiru G.Dhanaraj, District Judge of Tamil Nadu, Judicial Service as Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Puducherry, on deputation basis to the Government of Puducherry, in the existing vacancy. 9. In these circumstances, both parties have made submission that the writ petition could be disposed of directing the first respondent Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court to pass an award in I.D.No.25/2012 within a period of six months. It is also submitted that while referring the industrial dispute in G.O.Rt.No.141/AIL/LAB/J/2012, Labour Department, Puducherry, dated 23.08.2012, the Government of Puducherry made it clear that the Tribunal shall submit the award within a period of three months from the date of issue of reference as per Section 10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Now, almost two years have lapsed and nothing moved further. In fact, since the writ petition was admitted and this Court granted interim order calling for the records, the notes papers in I.D.No.25/2012 was sent by the first respondent and therefore, the in-charge Judge has so far recorded that the matter is pending with this Court. 10. Under such circumstances, I passed orders on 23.07.2014 in this writ petition directing the Registry to send back the notes papers pursuant to I.D.No.25/2012. Even if the notes papers does not reach, the first respondent Labour Court could proceed further, as the notes papers are of no use to adjudicate the dispute on merits, particularly when even the parties have not filed the pleadings so far. 11. The Government, while exercising its power under Section 10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, made it clear that the award shall be submitted within a period of three months. But it is unfortunate that the matter is pending for more than two years and no Judicial Officer was appointed for a substantial period of time. Now, fortunately, a Judicial Officer is appointed. 12. Therefore, taking into account the huge pending of cases, a direction is issued to the first respondent Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court to decide I.D.No.25/2012 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Now, fortunately, a Judicial Officer is appointed. 12. Therefore, taking into account the huge pending of cases, a direction is issued to the first respondent Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court to decide I.D.No.25/2012 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, I make it very clear that this could not preclude the third respondent Management from proceeding with the denova enquiry by giving opportunity to the workman S.Rajendrane. It is needless to state that the workman shall cooperate in the enquiry and the Management shall conclude the enquiry within a period of five months and the Management shall also give a reasonable opportunity in compliance of principles of natural justice and the standing orders that are in force. However, no final order shall be passed until the industrial dispute is disposed of, since the same has a bearing on one of the issues referred for adjudication. After passing of the award, the Management could pass appropriate orders, depending on the outcome of the award, in the disciplinary proceedings relating to S.Rajendrane. 13. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.