JUDGMENT : A.D. MARIA CLETE, J. Heard. 2. After the matter was reserved for orders on 10.03.2025, the Court Officer compiled the case bundle, which included an office note recording the names of counsel who had advanced arguments and the list of citations relied upon, and the same was duly circulated to the residence. Following the dictation and verification of the draft, and upon the matter being ready for pronouncement, an oral representation was made by Mr. Anand Krishnan, learned counsel, on 26.03.2025, stating that he had not been heard. At no point prior to and even after 26.03.2025 did the learned counsel address any formal communication to the Registry or bring the opposite party for the purpose of mentioning. Even after the oral mention on 26.03.2025, no prompt steps were taken by the counsel to have the matter formally mentioned. It was only on 04.04.2025 that a written request was submitted to the Registry, following which the matter was listed on 16.04.2025 under the caption “for being mentioned.” 3. During that listing, learned counsel advanced submissions stating that the trial Court had failed to examine the balance sheets filed by the Management, which, according to him, demonstrated consistent financial losses. He contended that the Labour Court had instead relied on a comparison with similar industries to arbitrarily fix a sum of Rs.8,100/- as wages, without supporting evidence. Referring to paragraph 10 of the award, it was submitted that had the financial records been properly scrutinised, the Court would have concluded that the company was incurring losses, and in such a case, drawing comparisons with other industries would be unwarranted. It was further submitted that the Labour Court erroneously recorded the continued operation of Unit II at Vanagaram, whereas the said unit had been closed long prior, and that this incorrect factual premise invalidated the rationale for any upward wage revision. 4. In conclusion, learned counsel submitted that if the Court were to consider remanding the matter—as suggested by the respondent—then liberty may be granted to the Management to adduce evidence before the Labour Court. However, if the Court were disinclined to remand and intended to decide the matter on merits, then it was urged that the findings in paragraph 10 of the award be treated as indicative of perversity, warranting interference. 5. However, if the Court were disinclined to remand and intended to decide the matter on merits, then it was urged that the findings in paragraph 10 of the award be treated as indicative of perversity, warranting interference. 5. On a comprehensive evaluation, it is seen that the submissions now made are reiterations of arguments already advanced prior to the matter being reserved. Accordingly, this Court has proceeded to deliver judgment based on the arguments heard, while also giving due regard to the written submissions placed before the Labour Court and the grounds urged therein. 6. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner Management challenging the Award dated 20.12.2019 passed by the 1st Respondent Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.35 of 2015. By the said award, the Tribunal concluded that certain demands raised by the 2nd Respondent Trade Union were not justified, while granting relief in respect of some other demands. The operative portion of the impugned award reads as follows: “In the result, the demand Nos. 1(b), 2(a), 3 and 4 are justified to that extent that all the employees in Unit-2 are entitled to get Rs.8,100/- per month with effect from the date of reference 11.09.2015 and other demand Nos. 1(a) and 2(b), 5, 6(a), 6(b), 6(c), 7,8,12 to 16. 20, 22 and 24 are not justified.” 7. The writ petition was admitted on 21.01.2020. In the application for interim stay filed in WMP No.1221 of 2020, an interim stay was granted after considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shivraj Fine Arts Litho Works v. State Industrial Court, Nagpur & Ors., reported in 1978 (2) SCC 601 . Subsequently, by a further order dated 17.03.2021, the interim stay was extended until 24.03.2021. Meanwhile, the 2nd Respondent entered appearance and filed a vacate stay application dated 14.12.2020, supported by an affidavit. 8. Subsequently, when the matter was listed on 26.03.2021, this Court passed the following order: “This Court, by its order dated 21.01.2020, granted stay of award of Industrial Tribunal. The matter pertains to wage revision of workers. This Court considering the observation made by the Industrial Tribunal that management was not incurring profit and ordering revising the wages in the uniform wage revision at the rate of Rs.8,100/-. Irrespective of the category of workers and without comparing the industries which are having similar business. 2. The matter pertains to wage revision of workers. This Court considering the observation made by the Industrial Tribunal that management was not incurring profit and ordering revising the wages in the uniform wage revision at the rate of Rs.8,100/-. Irrespective of the category of workers and without comparing the industries which are having similar business. 2. Now that the respondent entered appearance and filed a vacate stay petition and submit that the minimum wages increase even if it is calculated at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per year and it will workout to Rs.78,000/- per worker as of today. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / management would offer to pay Rs.20,000/- per worker and requests for remand of the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh arguments. 4. However, this suggestion is not acceptable by the respondent union and they would insist for deposit of Rs.50,000/- to prove the bonafides. 5. Considering the submission made by both sides, this Court is of the considered view that each of the workers shall be paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- directly and the writ petition will be taken up for final hearing during 2nd week of April, 2021. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner / management would request payment of the amount in two instalments. 7. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to make a sum of Rs.50,000/- per worker in two instalments commencing from 7th April, 2021.” 9. The 2 nd Respondent Trade Union filed a Contempt Petition, being CP No.637 of 2022, seeking to punish the Managing Director of the Respondent for willful disobedience of the order dated 26.03.2021. In response, the Petitioner Management filed a counter affidavit, stating that the amount directed had been paid to 72 workers who were on the rolls as of 07.04.2021. However, the Union contended that the amounts had not been paid to the terminated workers. This Court, upon examining the order dated 26.03.2021, observed that it did not indicate any intention to extend the benefit to the terminated workers. In view of this finding, the contempt petition was closed. 10. After the payment of interim relief, 20 workers, led by one A. Kannan, filed an impleading petition seeking a direction to record the settlement dated 31.03.2022, entered into under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act . In view of this finding, the contempt petition was closed. 10. After the payment of interim relief, 20 workers, led by one A. Kannan, filed an impleading petition seeking a direction to record the settlement dated 31.03.2022, entered into under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act . They also sought a consequential order to omit/delete their names from the dispute and to terminate the award in I.D.No.35 of 2015. A bundle of affidavits filed by the workmen was enclosed along with the petition. The impleading petition was numbered as WMP No. 18333 of 2022, seeking to implead the said workers as party respondents in the writ petition. However, the said petition is yet to be ordered. Although the Union stated that they were satisfied with the settlement dated 31.03.2022 under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act , a copy of the settlement has not been filed before this Court. 11 .Meanwhile, when the matter came up before this Court on 24.07.2023, a learned Judge directed the parties to undergo mediation, and passed the following order: “With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Management and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent Thozhirsangam, this Court appoints Mr.K.M.Ramesh, Senior Advocate, No.157, Additional Law Chambers, High Court Buildings, Madras High Court, Chennai – 600 104, as Mediator to mediate the issue in between the Management and the Workmen and to file a report before this Court on 21.08.2023” 12. The learned mediator, after conducting the mediation proceedings, had to close the same as the parties could not reach any settlement. In his report dated 11.12.2023, it was stated as follows: “When Mediation commenced, the Management representative wanted the Union to give their proposal to enable the Management to consider the same and to give their counter proposal. Accordingly, I advised the representative of the Union to give their proposal. Union gave its proposal and the same was given to the Management’s representative. After taking two or three adjournments, on 22.11.2023 the representative of the Management stated that Management is not willing to settle the matter and the Mediation may be closed. In view of the above said stand taken by the Management, I am left with no option but to close the Mediation on 22.11.2023. Therefore, I am filing this report recording failure of Mediation between the parties. In view of the above said stand taken by the Management, I am left with no option but to close the Mediation on 22.11.2023. Therefore, I am filing this report recording failure of Mediation between the parties. I pray that the above report be accepted and render justice.” 13. Thereafter, the matter was listed for regular hearing, and the parties were heard. From the records, it is evident that the 2nd Respondent Union raised a dispute concerning their charter of demands through a letter dated 02.12.2014, addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Sriperumbudur. The Conciliation Officer issued notice to the Respondent, who submitted their reply remarks dated 17.12.20 14. Despite holding conciliation meetings on several occasions, no settlement could be reached between the parties. Consequently, the Conciliation Officer recorded the failure of conciliation and forwarded a report to the Government of Tamil Nadu through the proper channel, vide his report dated 16.02.2015 (Ex.P4). 14.In the operative portion of the failure report, the Conciliation Officer recorded the reasons for the failure as follows: 15. Pursuant to the failure report submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the Government of Tamil Nadu, by G.O.(D) No.486, Labour and Employment Department, dated 11.09.2015, referred as many as 24 demands for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu. Among these 24 demands, Demand Nos. 1 and 2 each contained two sub-demands. By the same order, the Government declined to refer 16 other demands raised by the 2nd Respondent Union. Although the Union had stated that they reserved the right to challenge that portion of the order declining to refer certain demands, no such challenge has been brought to the notice of this Court till date. 16. Upon receipt of the order of reference, the Tribunal took up the dispute as I.D.No.35 of 2015 and issued notice to the parties. The 2nd Respondent Union filed their claim statement, dated nil, July 2016, while the Respondent filed their reply statement dated 05.09.2017. Before the Tribunal, one S. Murali, General Secretary of the 2nd Respondent Union, examined himself as PW1. On behalf of the Union, 18 documents were filed and marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. On the side of the Petitioner Management, three witnesses were examined: K. Anandan (RW1), P. Mani (RW2), B. Loganathan (RW3) The Management filed 41 documents, which were marked as Ex.R1 to Ex.R41. On behalf of the Union, 18 documents were filed and marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. On the side of the Petitioner Management, three witnesses were examined: K. Anandan (RW1), P. Mani (RW2), B. Loganathan (RW3) The Management filed 41 documents, which were marked as Ex.R1 to Ex.R41. Two photographs and one CD were marked as Material Objects MO1 to MO3. 17. Upon analyzing the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the demands raised under items 1(b), 2(a), 3, and 4 were justified. As regards the remaining demands, the Tribunal held that it will be beyond the financial capacity of the Management, and accordingly, those demands were rejected. Further, there has been no challenge raised by the 2 nd Respondent Union concerning the demands that were rejected by the Tribunal. The cumulative effect of the Tribunal’s finding that the aforesaid four demands were justified resulted in an entitlement for all employees of Unit II to receive a sum of Rs. 8,100/- per month with effect from the date of reference, i.e., 11.09.2015. 18. The four demands that were favorably considered by the Tribunal in favor of the Union are as follows: “Demand No.1(b) : Whether the demand of the Petitioner Union that the basic wages shall be increased by Rs.5,000/- for the workers in Grade A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1,D2,E1 and E2, is justified? If yes, pass appropriate orders. Demand No.2(a) Whether the demand of the Petitioner Union that the existing fixed dearness allowance of Rs.2,000/- shall be increased with an additional sum of Rs.3,000/- is justified? If yes, pass appropriate Orders. Demand No.3 : Whether the demand of the Petitioner Union that the variable dearness allowance of the workers be paid at the rate of Rs.4/- per each point increasing above 5210 after equalizing the 100 points with the consumer index price 1960-100 series is justified. If so to pass appropriate orders. Demand No.4 : Whether the demand of the Petitioner Union that the existing yearly wage increase of Rs.3.30/- to Rs.7/- per day shall be regularized and yearly increase of Rs.1,000/- shall be given to all workers is justified? If yes, pass appropriate orders.” 19. The management contended that the Tribunal failed to adequately consider its financial capacity to bear the proposed increase, and argued that the implementation of the Award would result in a cascading effect on the overall wage structure. If yes, pass appropriate orders.” 19. The management contended that the Tribunal failed to adequately consider its financial capacity to bear the proposed increase, and argued that the implementation of the Award would result in a cascading effect on the overall wage structure. It was further contended that the wage scales paid by JBM Company were not comparable to those of the petitioner management. The management also challenged the Tribunal’s observation that the wage increase was justified on the grounds of inflation, fair standard of living, and financial stability, asserting that these factors were insufficient to warrant an increase to Rs. 8,100/-. It was also argued that the offer made during the conciliation proceedings to enhance the pay to Rs. 7,514/- as CTC for a period of two years was contingent upon the workmen meeting the productivity norms set out in the earlier settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Ex.P6 =Ex.R3). 20. It was further contended that the said settlement provided for a special allowance under para 6.9 and specified production norms under para 12, both of which were not disputed by the Union. The eligibility for any portion of the special allowance, which constitutes a significant part of the wage increase, was contingent upon achieving the prescribed productivity norms. However, the Tribunal failed to take into account the productivity norms altogether. Further, the impugned award, in granting dearness allowance, should not have been made effective from any anterior date but only from the date of the Award, i.e., September 2015. Moreover, the Tribunal did not specify the period of validity of the Award. The Tribunal also overlooked the prevailing slackness in the automotive sector, which was a relevant factor in determining wage enhancement. The increase in wages to Rs.8,100/- ordered by the Tribunal was not based on any cogent evidence. The cumulative financial impact of the Award, as of 31.12.2019, would amount to approximately Rs. 4 Crores. 21. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, reliance was also placed on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: 1. French Motor Car Company Vs.Workmen reported in AIR 1963 SC 1327 2. Shivraj Fine Arts Litho Works Vs. The State Industrial Court, Nagpur reported in 1978 (2) SCC 601 22. Per contra, the Respondent Union contended that the Petitioner Management is a multinational company engaged in the manufacturing of automobile components. French Motor Car Company Vs.Workmen reported in AIR 1963 SC 1327 2. Shivraj Fine Arts Litho Works Vs. The State Industrial Court, Nagpur reported in 1978 (2) SCC 601 22. Per contra, the Respondent Union contended that the Petitioner Management is a multinational company engaged in the manufacturing of automobile components. At the time of raising the dispute, there were 374 workers employed, of whom 214 were permanent and members of the Union. However, during the pendency of the dispute, the management allegedly indulged in unfair labour practices and terminated as many as 62 workers, with approval petitions in respect of the terminations were pending before the Conciliation Officer. 23. Here and Now, the Union entered into a settlement under Section 12(3) in 2011, which remained in force until 30.06.2013. Upon the expiration of the settlement, the Union raised a new charter of demands, leading to a reference for adjudication. Given that the workmen had not benefited from any wage revision during this period, the justification for placing those demands arose. 24. The Management is relying on the decision in French Motor Company’s case , is that the principle of "industry-cum-region" mandates a proper comparison even within the same line of business. It was argued that a small, struggling concern cannot be equated with a large, flourishing enterprise. Reference made to Shivraj Fine Arts Litho Works’ case , wherein it was held that, while determining fair wages, including the scale of pay and dearness allowance, the financial capacity of the management must be duly considered. The contention of the Management is that it was paying Rs. 2.9 as Dearness Allowance per point increase. It was contended that the demand should take effect only from the date of the Award and not from the date of the demand. 25. In the written submission dated 12.06.2019 filed before the Tribunal, the Management stated as follows in Paragraph 8: “8. ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION Further, the Respondent humbly submits to this Honourable Industrial Tribunal that the Respondent Management always genuinely tried to do the best for all its employees and even at the very beginning of negotiations, the Respondent Management had offered for the wage increase of Rs.7500/-. Unfortunately, Petitioner Union is engaging in speculative litigation without understanding the Respondent’s financial predicament.” 26. It cannot be said that the Tribunal overlooked the pleas raised by the Management. Unfortunately, Petitioner Union is engaging in speculative litigation without understanding the Respondent’s financial predicament.” 26. It cannot be said that the Tribunal overlooked the pleas raised by the Management. On the contrary, the Tribunal thoroughly considered the balance sheets marked as Ex.R4 to Ex.R7 and concluded that the Management was not making a profit. However, the absence of profit over a few years does not necessarily resolve the wage dispute, as it may be more relevant in the context of profit-sharing bonuses. Furthermore, the Tribunal was mindful of the "region-cum-industry" principle, emphasizing that only comparable concerns should be taken into account. It also took note of the judgment cited by the Management while arriving at its decision. 27. The workmen clearly contended that the Petitioner Management operated three units, namely Thoraipakkam, Vaanagaram, and Pukkathurai. While the Vaanagaram unit had already been closed, the Management had entered into a settlement dated 31.07.2010 (Ex.R1) concerning the Thoraipakkam unit. This settlement provided for an increase in wages, shifting allowance, transportation, and various other benefits. Subsequently, the workers from the Thoraipakkam unit were transferred to the Pukkathurai unit, effectively creating two categories of workers with distinct sets of benefits. It was pointed out that JBM Automotive System, a neighboring company and a comparable concern, was offering higher wages to its workmen. 28. Before the Tribunal, the Respondent Union relied on the following decisions. In Unichem Laboratories Ltd. v. The Workmen reported in 1972 (3) SCC 552 , the Supreme Court, after referring to the earlier Remington Rand Case , held that the existing pattern of dearness allowance can be modified in light of an increase in prices. The Court observed as follows: “The contention that because there was a system of dearness allowance in existence in the Company and therefore there was no justification for revising the same, cannot be accepted. A similar contention raised in Remington Rand of India v. Its Workmen( 1962 (1) LLJ 287 ) was rejected by this Court. In that. case there was a system of dearness allowance providing for payment of not only a rate of percentage on the basic salary but also a variation in the percentage on the rise or fall of the cost of living index. The workmen demanded revision of the scale of dearness allowance on the ground that the cost of living index had increased. The workmen demanded revision of the scale of dearness allowance on the ground that the cost of living index had increased. The claim was resisted by the Company on the ground that the scheme of dearness allowance then existing in the Company itself provided for an increase in the cost of living index and therefore no revision is required. This contention was not accepted by this Court. It was held that a claim made by the Workmen, if otherwise justified, cannot be rejected on the sole ground that a provision is already made in an existing scheme of dearness allowance for adjustment depending upon an increase in the cost of living index. This Court further held that if it is established that the cost of living shows a tendency to rise very high, the workmen would be entitled to claim and there may be a change in the rate of dearness allowance originally fixed, so, as to provide for more neutralisation. It was further held that a claim made by the workmen will have to be properly considered and adjudicated upon by the Tribunal. In fact, in that case, it is seen that there was only a 50 point rise in the cost of living index and nevertheless the revision of the scale of dearness allowance by the Tribunal was upheld. ” 29. In the present case, it is undisputed that the settlement signed with the Union expired on 30.06.2013, and it was only thereafter that the Union raised a dispute with a fresh charter of demands. In fact, the majority of these demands were either refused to be referred for adjudication or outrightly rejected by the Tribunal, leaving the workers at a disadvantage. When a dispute is raised, it is within the right of the workmen to seek a revision of dearness allowance and wages from the date of demand, which was admittedly made after the expiration of the previous settlement. The Tribunal also took note of the management’s offer made before the Conciliation Officer, and the amount now awarded represents only a marginal difference from what was initially offered. The Tribunal’s grant of Rs. 8,100/- is reasonable and essential to ensure the workers’ livelihood. The Tribunal also took note of the management’s offer made before the Conciliation Officer, and the amount now awarded represents only a marginal difference from what was initially offered. The Tribunal’s grant of Rs. 8,100/- is reasonable and essential to ensure the workers’ livelihood. Furthermore, the management's contention that the Tribunal failed to prescribe a period for the award is clearly misconceived, as Section 19(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act itself stipulates that the life of an award is one year. The other contentions put forth by the Management are equally misconceived and are liable to be rejected. 30. In view of the foregoing, the impugned award in I.D.No. 35/2015 dated 20.12.2019 does not suffer from any infirmity and is liable to be upheld. Consequently, W.P.No. 1015 of 2020 stands dismissed. Consequently, WMP Nos. 1220/2020, 1221/2020, and 24367/2020 are also dismissed. The workers who have received payments pursuant to interim orders are entitled to claim the balance amount after making adjustments for the sums already paid. As regards WMP No. 18333 of 2022, filed by certain workers seeking impleadment in the writ petition, the same is also misconceived and dismissed. The workers covered under the said WMP are already covered by the impugned award. If they have entered into a bilateral settlement with the management for reasons best known to them, they may be content with such settlement. However, they cannot, without the support of the union, seek to terminate the award or legitimize a reduced payment. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.