ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned ex-parte award dated 23.09.2010 passed by the first respondent Labour Court in I.D. No. 193 of 2006 and communicated on 17.02.2011. The case of the Management is that the workman stated that he joined the Company on 18.02.1991 and he rendered blemisheless service. Without any charge sheet or enquiry, the Management discharged his services with effect from 17.09.2003 and at that time, the workman was getting monthly salary as Rs. 1,800/- per month. In spite of the representation, he was not given employment. 2. The Management filed a detailed counter in the Industrial Dispute denying the averments. The case of the Management is that the workman left the service on his own and he was employed till 30.09.2003 as a Watchman and thereafter, the workman submitted a resignation letter and did not report for work. On 31.01.2004, the workman made a representation that he was paid wages less than that he was entitled to and that that was the reason for his denial of employment and that he should be reinstated with effect from 17.09.2003 with back-wages and other attendant benefits. The Conciliation ended in failure and the Industrial dispute was taken as I.D. No. 193 of 2006 by the Labour Court, Trichy. 3. Before the Labour Court, the parties have filed their respective statements. The workman marked 10 documents and examined himself, after the Management was set ex-parte. Unfortunately, the Labour Court has not passed an award on merits, instead, has held that the Management was set ex-parte and claim of the workmen was proved. 4. The writ petitioner Management contended that it is not an award and as the award has come into force, they could not file a petition to recall the ex-parte order by filing a petition u/s 11 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 read with Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. The Management submitted that the award copy was received on 17.02.2011 and filing a petition to recall the ex-parte award is not going to serve any purpose and hence, they approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for the Management and the learned Counsel for the Workman. Both agreed that the matter may be remanded on conditions imposed by this Court. 6. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for the Management and the learned Counsel for the Workman. Both agreed that the matter may be remanded on conditions imposed by this Court. 6. The Courts have held that "dismissal for default" is not an award. If the contention of the Management has to be accepted that the labour Court has become functus officio and hence after the award has come into force they have approached this Court, all the Management would wait for the award to come into force and thereafter file a writ petition stating that they have no remedy and the period mentioned under the Rules has expired. 7. It is a well settled law that mere absence of workman or the Union does not absolve the Labour Court or Tribunal from proceeding with a reference referred to it and making the award as held in the decision in United Transformers Manufacturing Co. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1964 (1) LLJ 722. Similarly, when a reference is made u/s 10, the Tribunal or Labour Court has to adjudicate on the dispute and not just close or end the proceedings before it by any method which does not involve adjudication or resolution of the dispute referred to, which is the view in Andhra Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, AIR 1964 AP 363 . 8. In view of that, a technical termination of the proceedings does not serve the purpose of the reference or the object of the Act, 1947. Similar view is applicable to the dispute under the amended provisions. In case, the party to the proceeding fails to attend or to be represented, the Labour Court or Tribunal will have to proceed with the Industrial Dispute as if the party had duly attended or had been represented. 9. Based on the materials available on record, the Tribunal will have to pass an award on merits. In case, an ex-parte award is passed, the matter can be reopened and I.D. can be restored if an application is filed before the award has come into force. If the award has come into force, the Tribunal or the Labour Court will become functus officio. 10. In this case, the Management has not filed any petition as contemplated under Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. If the award has come into force, the Tribunal or the Labour Court will become functus officio. 10. In this case, the Management has not filed any petition as contemplated under Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. The Management contended that as the Labour Court has become functus officio, and the filing of petition is not going to serve the purpose. The contention of the Management is interesting. If the Management's stand is going to be allowed, all the Managements will straightaway file the writ petition challenging the ex-parte award and contend that dismissal for default is not an award and the matters have to be tried on merits by the respective Labour Court or Tribunal after the award comes into force. The Management should have invoked the Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, within time frame, the Court could have considered and remanded the matter for adjudication of the dispute on merits without stipulating any condition. 11. In this case, the Management approached this Court directly. This Court, even though accepts the contention of the Management that dismissal for default is not an award, while remanding the matter and directing the Labour Court to decide the matter within a period of six months, directs the Management to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month pending disposal of the Industrial Disputes on merits. I make it very clear, that if any preliminary order is passed, neither the Management nor the Union/individual can approach this Court challenging the preliminary order. In case of adverse order against the workman in a preliminary issue, the workman may approach this Court and try to get the benefit of Rs. 3,000/- per month on the score that the Industrial Dispute is pending. In case, an employee approaches the High Court challenging the preliminary order passed by the Labour Court, the amount of Rs. 3,000/- payable every month will stop operating. The Labour Court is directed to strictly comply with the Rule 34(9) of the Tamil Nadu Rules, in granting adjournment. The party while taking the adjournment have to file an affidavit seeking adjournment by giving reasons. In case, the employee prolongs the dispute beyond six months, the amount payable per month will be reduced to Rs. 1,500/- p.m. In case, the Management protract the proceedings after six months, the monthly payment payable stand increased to Rs. The party while taking the adjournment have to file an affidavit seeking adjournment by giving reasons. In case, the employee prolongs the dispute beyond six months, the amount payable per month will be reduced to Rs. 1,500/- p.m. In case, the Management protract the proceedings after six months, the monthly payment payable stand increased to Rs. 4,500/- till the disposal of the Industrial Dispute. The payment of this amount is only to ensure that there is a speedy trial and conclusion. Whether the amount should be increased or not after the period of six months will have to be decided by the respective Labour Court. Any application for enhancement of the amount or reduction of the amount need not stop adjudication of dispute on merits. This Court reiterates that if any preliminary order is passed by the Labour Court, the party should not approach this Court challenging that order. The preliminary order can be questioned along with the final award as has been held in The Cooper Engineering Limited vs. Shri P.P. Mundhe, (1975) 2 SCC 661 . 12. The Management will have to file a writ petition challenging the order in interlocutory petition only if the Labour Court/Tribunal holds, that it has become functus officio on the ground that the award has come into force along with the ex-parte award simultaneously. If not filed simultaneously, the employee will have to succeed. Even if the ex-parte award is questioned one day after challenging the preliminary order or vice-versa, it cannot be said that the party has challenged the preliminary order and the ex-parte award simultaneously. 13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with the conditions mentioned supra. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. Since both the parties have agreed for fresh disposal on merits, this court has imposed the condition; otherwise (if there is no consent) this writ petition has to fail with exemplary cost as no writ petition can be filed bypassing Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Dispute Rules, 1958 read with Section 11 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 as in this case the award has become final in terms of Section 17(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.