JUDGMENT : 1. Challenging the order passed in I.A.No.52 of 2014 in I.D.No.8 of 2014 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, the Employees Union has filed the above Civil Revision Petition. 2. The above Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the Union to direct the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, to hear I.A.No.52 of 2014 on the basis of the affidavit and the documentary evidence filed on record without recourse to any oral evidence, including, by way of cross examination at the interlocutory stage. The Industrial Dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal and the same was numbered as I.D.No.8 of 2014. The Union filed their claim statement before the Tribunal. The Union also filed an application in I.A.No.52 of 2014 under Section 10 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Tribunal to issue an order of interim direction directing the respondent/Management to pay Rs.15,000/- per month as interim relief from the date of expiry of the terminated settlement viz.,06.07.2013 pending disposal of the Industrial Dispute. 3. The respondent/Management filed its counter and is contesting the application. The Management filed an application in I.A.No.114 of 2014 in I.A.No.52 of 2014 in I.D.No.8 of 2014 seeking permission from the Court to direct the petitioner Union to subject themselves for cross examination by the Management in I.A.No.52 of 2014. The petition was contested by the Union. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the case of both parties, dismissed the application by order dated 05.03.2015. 4. Thereafter, the Management filed another application in I.A.No.208 of 2014 in I.A.No.52 of 2014 seeking permission of the Court to adduce evidence in I.A.No.52 of 2014 and to mark the documents produced by the petitioner/Union only in accordance with law. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal allowed the application and permitted the Management to examine witnesses on their side. Further, the Tribunal in its order dated 05.03.2015 in I.A.No.208 of 2014 observed that the Management and the Union had relied upon number of documents and all the documents filed by the Management as well as the Union may be marked, subject to objections. 5. Thereafter, the Union filed number of documents before the Tribunal in I.A.No.52 of 2014. Further, the Tribunal in its order dated 05.03.2015 in I.A.No.208 of 2014 observed that the Management and the Union had relied upon number of documents and all the documents filed by the Management as well as the Union may be marked, subject to objections. 5. Thereafter, the Union filed number of documents before the Tribunal in I.A.No.52 of 2014. Since the application was pending for a long time, the Union filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.1769 of 2015 to direct the Tribunal to hear and decide the application in I.A.No.52 of 2014 in I.D.No.8 of 2014 expeditiously within a stipulated time. 6. According to the learned counsel on either side, the Writ Petition is pending before this Court. 7. Now, the Union has filed the present Civil Revision Petition seeking for the above said relief. 8. It is not in dispute that the order passed by the Tribunal in I.A.No.208 of 2014 in I.A.No.52 of 2014 has become final and the Union has not challenged the same. 9. Mr. V. Prakash, learned senior counsel, who is the President of the petitioner Union appeared on behalf of the Union and made his submissions. He submitted that the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to grant interim relief and in support of his contention relied upon the following judgments: (i) (2014) 14 Supreme Court Cases 483 [Goa MRF Employees Union Vs. MRF Limited]; (ii) 1992 MLJ 382 [E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd., and another Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Madras and another]; (iii) (1960) 1 SCR 476 : AIR 1959 SC 1342 : (1959) 2 LLJ 544 [Hotel Imperial Vs. Hotel Workers' Union]; (iv) AIR 1972 Ker 181 [George Vs. State]; (v) AIR 1995 Ker 36 [Alappuzha Municipality Vs. T.J. Paul] (vi) (1980) LLJ 137 [Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha]; (vii) 2010-II-LLJ-175 (Mad) [Management of Bata India Limited, Hosur 635 126 and Another Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Tamil Nadu, Chennai 600 104 and Others]; (viii) AIR 1985 Bom 362 [Ajit Baburao Sawant and others Vs. General Manager, Best Undertaking of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others] and (ix) (1981) 2 Supreme Court Cases 766 [United Commercial Bank Vs. Bank of India and others]. 10. Mr. G. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has not disputed the said contention raised by the petitioner. General Manager, Best Undertaking of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others] and (ix) (1981) 2 Supreme Court Cases 766 [United Commercial Bank Vs. Bank of India and others]. 10. Mr. G. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has not disputed the said contention raised by the petitioner. Therefore, I am not giving any finding with regard to the contention raised by the President of the Union. 11. Now, the question that has to be decided in the present Civil Revision Petition is with regard to letting in oral evidence by the parties. When the Tribunal has permitted the Management to adduce oral evidence, which order has also become, I am of the view that the Management cannot be prevented from adducing oral evidence in view of the order passed by the Tribunal. That apart, there is no bar under any Act prohibiting a party from letting in oral evidence in support of his case. Even in the Interlocutory Applications, the parties can let in oral evidence to establish their case. When there is no bar for the parties to let in evidence, the contention raised by the President of the petitioner Union that the Tribunal should be directed to dispose of the application in I.A.No.52 of 2014 without recourse to any oral evidence, including by way of cross examination, cannot be accepted. 12. Furthermore, for expeditious disposal of the application in I.A.No.52 of 2014, the petitioner Union also filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.1769 of 2015, which is also pending. The President of the petitioner Union submitted that the application is pending for nearly one year before the Tribunal. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the Tribunal can be directed to dispose of the application within a stipulated time. The judgments relied upon by the President of the Union are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the issue involved in the present case. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be rejected. 13. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Chennai (including the Acting Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Chennai) is directed to dispose of the application in I.A.No.52 of 2014 in I.D.No.8 of 2014 within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be rejected. 13. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Chennai (including the Acting Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Chennai) is directed to dispose of the application in I.A.No.52 of 2014 in I.D.No.8 of 2014 within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, is directed to dispose of the Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.8 of 2014 within three months from the date of disposal of the application in I.A.No.52 of 2014 in I.D.No.8 of 2014. 14. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.