ORDER : By consent, the main writ petitions themselves are taken up for final hearing. 2. As the issues involved in all the writ petitions are one and the same, they have been taken up together and disposed of by way of a common order. 3. Admittedly, the second respondent/s in the writ petitions were employees of the petitioner. Claims have been made in I.D.Nos.326 and 327 of 2010 by the second respondent/s in the writ 4 petitions challenging the orders of dismissal passed and seeking the consequential benefits. As the petitioner-Management did not appear either in person or through counsel, ex-parte awards have been passed on 27.06.2012. Seeking to set aside the said awards, the petitioner has filed applications in I.A.Nos.208 & 209 of 2012. Both the applications have been dismissed on merits as well as on the question of maintainability, since 30 days time had expired after publication of the notification. Challenging the same, the present writ petitions have been filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a perusal of the awards would show that no reasons have been assigned. Even assuming that the petitioner was absent, a duty is imposed upon the Labour Court to consider the materials available on record. As the petitioner has challenged the awards passed as well as the rejection of the applications seeking condonation of delay, the writ petitions filed will have to be allowed and liberty may be given to put forth their case. There is no contra material to disallow the petitions seeking condonation of delay. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/s in the writ petitions submitted that the dispute has been raised as 5 early as in the year 2010 and for the delay caused by the petitioner, the second respondent/s-employees shall not be made to suffer. The Labour Court, on finding the absence of the petitioner, has rightly passed the awards since the law does not permit the Labour Court to condone the delay after publication of the awards. Hence, no interference is required. 6. A perusal of the awards passed would show that no reasons have been assigned while passing them. The Labour Court was persuaded to pass the awards merely on failure of the petitioner to appear before the Court and on merit. The materials available on record have not been considered except marking them. Hence, no interference is required. 6. A perusal of the awards passed would show that no reasons have been assigned while passing them. The Labour Court was persuaded to pass the awards merely on failure of the petitioner to appear before the Court and on merit. The materials available on record have not been considered except marking them. Thus, this Court is of the view that the awards suffer from infirmity. However, the petitioner has specifically stated that a mistake has been committed by a Lawyer. The delay is also not huge and it is only about 131 days in filing the applications. What the petitioner seeks is an adjudication on merit. Considering the same, this Court is inclined to set aside the awards passed by the first respondent-Labour Court in I.D.Nos.326 and 327 of 2010. 7. However, the second respondent/s-employees are suffering without any payment, despite the fact that they have approached the Labour Court within a reasonable time. Considering the same, while setting aside the awards passed on 27.06.2012 in I.D.Nos.326 and 327 of 2010, as the petitioner is also responsible for the delay to certain extent and taking note of the interest of justice, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-each to the second respondent/s in W.P.Nos. 3715 and 3716 of 2013 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the awards get restored automatically. Accordingly, I.D.Nos.326 and 327 of 2010 on the file of the First Additional Labour Court, Chennai, are restored and the First Additional Labour Court, Chennai, is directed to dispose of I.D.Nos.326 and 327 of 2010 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, writ petitions are allowed. No costs. 8. In view of the orders passed in the writ petitions, the contempt petition and the review petitions are closed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.