Order 1. Writ Petitions have been filed for the reliefs stated supra. 2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners before the lower court are referred as respondents and the respondent before the lower court is referred as petitioner hereinafter. 3. The issue pertaining to the suspension of operation was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication and the Tribunal has taken up the dispute as ID No.46 of 2002 and passed an award which is subject matter of W.P.No.35244 of 2012. The Union has raised the question against the suspension of operation declared by the Management. According to the workers, on 15.4.2002, the Management without due notice, had lock out the factory. The Govt. of Tamil Nadu had referred the dispute to Industrial Tribunal in G.O.(D).No.830 dated 01.10.2002, Labour and Employment Dept.,(A2) Govt. of Tamil Nadu to decide as to ''Whether the action of RSLB Union is in dispute with effect from 15.04.2002 and it is referable and justifiable dispute? and an appropriate order may be granted''. The Union has filed the claim statement and the Management has raised the issue with regard to the locus standi of the Union which is seen from paragraph 2 of the counter before the lower court in ID No.46/02. The Management informed the workers through notice stating the circumstances and that the employees are given holidays or leave till the company is revived and that the suspension of operation declared by them was on the basis of 'No work no pay'. The case of the Union is that there was no prior permission obtained either to lock out or for closing the Company. The Management contention was that the Union is not recognised and again raised a dispute that the petitioner Union has no locus standi or representative capacity to maintain the dispute. The five workmen in the other writ petitions had the benefits of the order of Labour Court in respective claim petitions and this Court has passed the order in W.P.No.2296 of 2008. The Labour Court proceeded on the basis that the High Court has granted the relief to some of the employees and that the workers herein are similarly placed and entitled to the compensation. Against the order in W.P.No.2296 of 2008, writ appeal was preferred and the order of learned Single Judge was reversed. The Labour Court proceeded on the basis that the High Court has granted the relief to some of the employees and that the workers herein are similarly placed and entitled to the compensation. Against the order in W.P.No.2296 of 2008, writ appeal was preferred and the order of learned Single Judge was reversed. As there is no adjudication since the order of the learned Single Judge was reversed, the order in I.D. No.46 of 2002 dated 10.11.2008 of the labour court will have to be set aside, is the contention of the Management. That apart Mr.Ravindran, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the reference is bad in law. As there is no reference as to whether the suspension of operation declared by the Management is justified or not and without deciding on this by the Tribunal, the present order of reference is bad and the Tribunal cannot decide and grant the relief to the workers as the petitioner Union has got no locus standi. 4. Per contra, Mr.Varadarajulu learned counsel for the respondents contended that de-horse the orders of the Division Bench of this Court and also that order has been passed by the Tribunal in I.D.No.46/02 holding that the act of management is not good and the workers are entitled to full wages. He would further contended that the Union's document was scrutinized by the Labour Officer and thereafter, the matter was referred for adjudication and the management has not taken up the plea and that plea is only a formal plea / technical plea and it cannot be a stand before this Court. 5. In reply, Mr.Ravindran, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court reported in 1973 (2) LLJ 341(Management of Madura Mills Co. Ltd., v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Madras) and contended that this Court has come to the conclusion that if the dispute is not responded by the workmen, it cannot be treated as industrial dispute and the reference is incompetent. 6. Heard both parties. 7. It is not in dispute that the union has raised the dispute and the Tribunal has passed as award. It is also an admitted fact that the management has raised a plea in regard to the contention of the Union in para 2 of the counter in I.D.No.46 of 2002 with regard to the representative capacity of the union. 7. It is not in dispute that the union has raised the dispute and the Tribunal has passed as award. It is also an admitted fact that the management has raised a plea in regard to the contention of the Union in para 2 of the counter in I.D.No.46 of 2002 with regard to the representative capacity of the union. The Management has filed a counter but, there is no appearance for the Management and therefore, exparte order was passed in I.D.No.46 of 2002. 8. The Tribunal has rightly passed an award on merits in the absence of management. But, unfortunately, the Tribunal has not answered the issue raised by the management. The contention of the union is that it is only a technical objection and that more than a decade has passed away and that this Court can grant relief which cannot be accepted. A specific point is taken by the management that the union has no representative capacity and that the reference itself is incompetent. Neither the union nor the Tribunal has gone into the question as the representative capacity of the union. There is no iota of evidence by the union. The main point raised by the management was not answered by the Tribunal and that point which has been raised in para 2 of the counter mentioned supra. 9. In the absence of any evidence or proof to show that any other persons who mainly demands on behalf of the workers, the reference is bad. Even though the reliance placed by Mr.Ravindran, learned counsel for the petitioner, pertaining to the dispute of the year 1969, and as per the previous law, there is Industrial Dispute raised by the Union is good as on date though with regard to non-employment of the individual workmen. After introduction of Section 2(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1965, there is no need for a support of the Union and even if the membership is not established independently, the dispute will not stand. In case of the Section 2 (K) pertaining to other issues could follow under Section 2A of Industrial Disputes Act, the principle laid down in the judgment will hold good. Even though, the Labour Court has stated that the WW1 has stated in evidence that there were 104 employees in the union, nowhere it is stated that there is sponsorship for raising dispute. Even though, the Labour Court has stated that the WW1 has stated in evidence that there were 104 employees in the union, nowhere it is stated that there is sponsorship for raising dispute. This Court in a decision reported in 1999 (2) LLJ 8(Food Corporation of India, Class IV Employee Union v. Sangrur and Food Corporation of India, Chandigarh), wherein the individual workers raised the dispute without any sponsorship for the union. The contention of the management was rejected on the ground that 120 employees jointly raised the dispute. In this case, there is no evidence to that effect. I find that the union has not proved the representative capacity to maintain the dispute and therefore, set aside the award and remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal on merits after giving opportunity to both parties and the Tribunal should complete the exercise within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. At no point of time, the Tribunal shall grant adjournment for the period of more than three days, on a petition filed by parties. Since the employee had the benefit of the award and there is no mandatory relief granted to them during the pendency of the writ petition and the management is directed to pay the concerned workers a sum of Rs.25,000/- each to enable them to sustain during the pendency of the industrial dispute. Since the order of the Labour Court in respective claim petitions based on the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court which has been referred by the Division Bench. The order of the Labour Court is set aside as it is open to the employees to approach the Labour Forum if so advised depending upon the outcome of the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.46 of 2002. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition filed by the Management is allowed to the extent indicated supra. There is no order as to costs. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 31.10.2014. The Registry is directed to send all relevant papers to the Tribunal and it is also made clear that there is no notice to be sent to the Tribunal and the parties.