ORDER : K. Ravichandrabaabu, J. 1. The petitioners are aggrieved against the award dated 28.03.2017 made in I.D. No. 247 of 2014, wherein and whereby, the Labour Court directed the Management to place the petitioners herein at the bottom of the seniority list with retrospective effect and to re-fix the seniority and grant monetary benefits accordingly. 2. These petitioners are employed in the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The panel list for the post of Commercial Inspector and Line Inspector was prepared on 24.06.2004. The grievance of the petitioners was that their names were not included in the said list. According to the petitioners, they made a representation to the Superintendent Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chengalpet, for promotion with effect from 24.06.2004 and thereafter, the selection list for promotion to the post of Commercial Inspector in the panel was approved on 09.03.2007 and consequently, the petitioners were promoted as Commercial Inspectors on 15.03.2007. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board prepared the selection list for promotion to the post of Foremen-I in the year 2009 and however, the petitioners' names were wrongly omitted to be included in the said list. However, it is stated that the petitioners' names were subsequently included at Serial Nos. 4 and 11 and they were promoted as Foremen-I on 12.08.2010. The third respondent/Union challenged the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the seniority list before the Labour Court by filing I.D. No. 247 of 2014. The Labour Court passed the impugned award by holding that the third respondent/Union herein, the petitioner therein, has justified that the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the approved list of the Management dated 12.08.2010 was wrong and that their names should have been placed at the bottom of the list. Accordingly, the Tribunal gave a direction to the Management to place these petitioners at the bottom of the list with retrospective effect and re-fix the seniority. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Mr. T. Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Labour Court has erroneously came to the conclusion that the promotion given to these petitioners was without an appeal preferred by these petitioners before the concerned authorities to grant such promotion, while in fact, such appeals were presented in time, as admitted by the management itself in the counter affidavit filed before the Labour Court. Therefore, he submitted that the Labour Court was not justified in passing the impugned award, that too, at the instance of the Union, which has no locus standi to question the promotion to these petitioners. 5. In this writ petition, notice was ordered to the contesting respondent/Union and even after service, the third respondent/Union has not chosen to appear before this Court either in person or through the counsel and on the other hand, the name of the third respondent is printed in the cause list. The second respondent/Management is being represented through their counsel. 6. It is seen that the third respondent/Union has questioned the promotion given to the petitioners herein by the second respondent/Management to the respective posts. The Management though filed a counter before the Labour Court, was however, set ex-parte later. Consequently, the Labour Court decided the matter after hearing the third respondent/Union as well as the petitioners herein. It is to be noted at this juncture, that these petitioners were not originally impleaded as parties/respondents in the said Industrial Dispute and it is seen that they were impleaded, subsequently, as parties/respondents. 7. Perusal of the impugned award would show that the Labour Court has chosen to set aside the seniority position granted to these petitioners only on the reason that no documentary evidence was produced to show that these petitioners filed appeals before the Chief Engineer, against their non-inclusion. On the other hand, the counter filed by the management before the Labour Court, clearly indicates that these petitioners have filed such appeals in time. However, since the management was set ex-parte, no documentary evidence was marked in support of such claim. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is better that the matter be remitted back to the Labour Court for rehearing the same for the purpose of marking the material documents in support of the contention of the petitioners as well as the second respondent that proper appeal was made before the concerned authorities challenging non-inclusion. It is also to be noted at this juncture, that the affected party, if any, have not come before the Labour Court and on the other hand, only the Union has chosen to file the industrial dispute. It is also to be noted at this juncture, that the affected party, if any, have not come before the Labour Court and on the other hand, only the Union has chosen to file the industrial dispute. In any event, as the Labour Court has decided the matter only on the reason that no documentary evidence was filed and since this Court is inclined to remit the matter back to the Labour Court, the parties are at liberty to adduce further evidence and make their submissions before the Labour Court in connection with such evidence. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai, for rehearing I.D. No. 247 of 2014. The second respondent/Management and the petitioners herein are permitted to mark documentary evidences in support of their contention. After marking such documents and hearing the respective parties, the Labour Court shall pass fresh award on merits and in accordance with law. The whole exercise shall be done by the first respondent/Labour Court, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.