ORDER : (D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.) A. The Petitions: These two Writ Petitions were filed 23 years ago. They challenge the same award of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, dated 22.06.2001 made in I.D.No.66 of 1990. By the said award, the Tribunal answered the reference partly in favour of the workmen holding that they are entitled for reinstatement into service. 1.1. Aggrieved by the same, the Management, namely, Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited, a public sector undertaking fully owned and sponsored by the Government of Tamil Nadu, has preferred W.P.No.22028 of 2002. Since the award did not grant back wages and also did not specifically mention continuity of service and other benefits, one of the two Trade Unions that had filed Claim Petitions, namely, Mettur General Workers Union, had filed W.P.No.7814 of 2003 claiming back wages, continuity of service and other benefits to the 106 workmen it has been representing. As such, the Writ Petitions are disposed of by this common order. B. The facts in brief: 2. The factual matrix, in which this labour conflict arises is that the Management was involved in quarrying minerals, specifically granites and at the relevant point in time, had more than 40 quarries in operation throughout the State of Tamil Nadu. The present dispute relates to four quarries: Yellikaradu, Salem District; Karungal Anai, Salem District; Paithur, Salem District; and Bevanur, Dharmapuri District. The activity involved is mining by blasting, etc., and the extracted stones must be cut, sized, and categorised according to their quality. 2.1. It is the case of the workmen that they worked as Chiselmen and Assistants in the said activity continuously for more than 10 years. A settlement was also arrived at on 07.11.1989 under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter 'the I.D Act’). Since the settlement was not implemented, the workmen resorted to strike from 16.11.1989 onwards. During conciliation proceedings, the Assistant Labour Commissioner advised the workmen to give up the strike and join duty. Accordingly, when the workmen went to resume duty on 18.12.1989, the management refused to permit them to join duty. Hence, they raised the present dispute. 2.2. Conciliation did not result in a resolution. Thereafter, the matter was referred for adjudication by the Government of India vide order No.L-29011/16/90, dated 03.08.1990, as follows:- "Whether the action of the management of M/s.Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd., Madras in disengaging the chiselmen is justified. Hence, they raised the present dispute. 2.2. Conciliation did not result in a resolution. Thereafter, the matter was referred for adjudication by the Government of India vide order No.L-29011/16/90, dated 03.08.1990, as follows:- "Whether the action of the management of M/s.Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd., Madras in disengaging the chiselmen is justified. If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled?" 2.3. Before the Tribunal, on 13.11.1990, Dharmapuri Mavatta Kanima Desiaya Thozilalar Sangam (INTUC) filed a claim statement. It filed the claim statement with reference to the workmen who are its members, who are mentioned in the Annexure to the claim statement. Apart from mentioning the settlement and non-employment, it is pleaded that the workmen were employed on a piece rate basis under the direct control and supervision of the management. They were paid bonuses and exgratia in the previous years as applicable to the permanent workers of the management. They were also provided various things such as shoes, helmets, goggles, respirators and facilities such as identity cards, medical facilities, statutory compensation, incentive payments etc. An attendance register was also maintained. They are covered by the Standing Orders and prayed for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages, regularizing the services and implementing the settlement, dated 07.11.1989. 2.4. Thereafter, on 02.02.1991, the Mettur General Workers Union filed a claim statement. Apart from the above details, the details as to the nature of work done by the workmen were given. It is stated that they are filing the claim on behalf of their members 79 workmen from Yellikaradu quarry and 40 workmen from Karungal Anai quarry. The details of conciliation proceedings are also given. It is stated that on 18.12.1989, 20.12.1989 and subsequently, the workmen reported for work but the management adopted an unhelpful attitude of denying the very employer- employee relationship. It is further submitted that work was denied to the Chiselmen of Yellikaradu and Karungal Anai quarries alone. Even though the Chiselmen were attempted to be put under one contractor by the name Ramasamy, subsequently, all of them were continuously engaged directly and they are permanent workmen. Non-implementation of the settlement amounts to unfair labour practices. Similar reliefs were prayed. 2.5. The claims were resisted by the management. A counter statement was filed on 25.06.1991. The averments made in the first claim statement alone were traversed. Non-implementation of the settlement amounts to unfair labour practices. Similar reliefs were prayed. 2.5. The claims were resisted by the management. A counter statement was filed on 25.06.1991. The averments made in the first claim statement alone were traversed. It is the case of the management that the list of members numbering 65, indicated in the petition, are not their workmen.There is no privity of contract nor there is any employer-employee relationship. Earlier, an attempt was made to claim such a relationship and W.P.No.30755 of 1989 filed by the workmen was disposed of holding that the employer-employee relationship has to be established first. The settlement, dated 07.11.1989 has nothing to do with these workmen. These workmen might have worked under the contractors and there is no direct relationship. They are not entitled to any bonus or exgratia. If at all any identity cards have been issued, the same are only for safety purposes and security reasons. At no point in time, they were treated as workmen under the management. The present grievance cannot be a dispute as per Section 2(k) of the I.D. Act. There is no question of reinstatement or payment of back wages. 2.6. After filing the counter, the management remained ex parte and an award was passed on 21.10.1992, allowing the claim of the workmen. The same was set aside by the order, dated 25.08.2000 in W.P.No.2939 of 1998 allowing the management to contest the claim. Thereafter, when the matter was taken up for enquiry, one K. Vijayan was examined as W.W.1 and Ex.W-1 to W-55 were marked. No oral evidence was let in on behalf of the management and Exs.M-1 to M-5 were marked. 2.7. The Tribunal considered the case of the parties. It considered the fact that the wages were paid every week through the maistry and the same was made as per attendance. There was supervision of the work was done by the management and recoveries were made from wages where it was not qualitative. Identity cards and attendance cards were also issued. From all the above, the employer-employee relationship is proven. 2.8. The Tribunal thereafter considered non-employment. It is the case of the management that the workmen themselves abandoned their duty. In this context, Ex.W-9 notice issued by the management was considered. Identity cards and attendance cards were also issued. From all the above, the employer-employee relationship is proven. 2.8. The Tribunal thereafter considered non-employment. It is the case of the management that the workmen themselves abandoned their duty. In this context, Ex.W-9 notice issued by the management was considered. When the workmen resorted to strike from 18.11.1989 onwards, it issued a notice that unless they returned within 24 hours, they would be deemed to have abandoned their duty. Therefore, merely for the strike, the workmen need not be refused work and granted the relief of rejoining duty. The operative portion in paragraph No.10 reads thus:- "Thus we find that striking employees need not be refused work if they choose to turn duty. Now it is made clear from the counsel for workmen that they are prepared to resume duty. As and when they resume duty, the management shall not refuse engagement." 2.9. After the above, paragraph No.11 deals with the objection to the reference of the dispute by the government and rejects the management's contention. Aggrieved, both sides are before this Court. C. The Arguments: 3. Heard Mr.B.Vijay, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the management. He would submit that this is a case where the work of chiselling is given as a contract. It is not a contract of work but the contract for work and that is why they were paid on an output basis. It is for the contractor to engage such other Chiselmen or Attendants (Assistants) who are never the employees of the management. A reading of the contract shows that there were no working hours or the number of persons to be engaged etc. The finished product is supplied back and the contractual amount per unit is paid. Thus, there is no employer-employee relationship. 3.1. Mr. B. Vijay would further argue in detail about the beneficiaries of the award. While the petitions for payment of Section 17B wages and interim compensation were ordered, the actual beneficiaries were not known. Those who filed affidavits before this Court were not on the list mentioned. Earlier, this Court took up the matter for verification. On verification, it was found that the petitioner union had mentioned 53 names in the Claim Petition. It has mentioned 106 names in the proof affidavit. It has furnished another list of 105 persons before this Court. 81 persons filed individual affidavits. Earlier, this Court took up the matter for verification. On verification, it was found that the petitioner union had mentioned 53 names in the Claim Petition. It has mentioned 106 names in the proof affidavit. It has furnished another list of 105 persons before this Court. 81 persons filed individual affidavits. Of the same, only 11 names are in sync with the three lists. Earlier disbursal of the interim amount could be made only to 5 persons mentioned by the other union. One more person has since passed away and a legal heirship certificate is to be produced. New persons are now filing affidavits before this Court. When a second attempt was made by this Court by directing the workmen to be present in Court, even then only a few turned up and the opportunity was not utilized on behalf of the workmen. 3.2. Mr.B.Vijay would submit that the management is a public sector undertaking. Given the later legal developments of obtaining prior environmental clearing etc., the business and activities have almost come to a standstill and no further work is carried on. Because of the efflux of time, on the earlier occasions, when a reasonable sum is offered to genuine workmen alone, the same was rebuked by the union. He would submit that the Court has to take into account the financial status, the current state of affairs and also the fake claims made even if relief has to be granted. 3.3. Per contra, MrV.Ajay Khose, who also submitted detailed written arguments, would argue that the employer-employee relationship stands proven. Mere payment on piece rate will not exclude the workmen from the definition. It is clear that upon strike they were non-employed despite the advice of the Conciliation Officer. When action has been taken pending conciliation, the same was done without prior permission and hence, is in direct violation of Section 33 of the I.D Act. The workmen would normally be entitled to reinstatement with back wages. Even if reinstatement is not possible on account of the efflux of time, all the benefits are calculated and are to be paid to the workmen. The workmen were negotiating for a settlement. It is the management that goes on reducing the offers. 3.4. As far as beneficiaries are concerned, a detailed memo is filed.He would submit that the petitioner union did not file any Annexure along with the claim statement. The workmen were negotiating for a settlement. It is the management that goes on reducing the offers. 3.4. As far as beneficiaries are concerned, a detailed memo is filed.He would submit that the petitioner union did not file any Annexure along with the claim statement. Erroneously, the Annexure filed by the other union was annexed with this Union’s claim statement. The petitioner union mentioned the number of workmen in their claim statement as 79 + 40. However, it could mention the names of 106 only in the proof affidavit. Thereafter, since the other union, became defunct, 58 of its members became members of the petitioner union and therefore, the petitioner union is claiming benefits for 164 Chiselmen & assistants. D. The Questions: 4. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the Writ Petitions' records. The following questions arise for determination:- i. Who are the workmen concerned in the present Industrial Dispute on whose behalf the reliefs are claimed and can be beneficiaries of any relief that is granted? ii. Whether there is employer-employee relationship? iii. Whether the non-employment is justified? iv. To what relief the workmen are entitled? E. Question No.i: 5. Whenever a dispute is raised under Section 2(k) by the Trade Union if the demand relates to particular workmen, it is mandatory that they finish the list of workmen in the demand itself or before the Tribunal in the pleading. If the claim is general, the list can be indicative of their representative capacity. For instance, if the claim is to enhance the pay scale for a particular designation say for example, ‘Machine Operator’, then the list need not be exhaustive. But, if it is a case of non-employment, retrenchment, closure etc., where the benefit of reinstatement of the particular workmen is prayed, the list is mandatory. It is mandatory because there must be an opportunity for the management to take a plea or disprove that the number is wrong or a particular workman was not in service, etc. 5.1. In this case, there are different lists. The lists do not match. In the context of disbursing interim relief, interim orders were passed to ascertain the actual workmen involved by directing verification of credentials, etc. However, when the matter later came up for hearing before another learned Judge, a different approach of directing the workmen to be physically present for verification, was adopted. The lists do not match. In the context of disbursing interim relief, interim orders were passed to ascertain the actual workmen involved by directing verification of credentials, etc. However, when the matter later came up for hearing before another learned Judge, a different approach of directing the workmen to be physically present for verification, was adopted. However, it can be seen that despite steps being taken with great detail and arduous attempts being made, the issue could not be resolved, and there is no concrete finding as to who are the affected workmen involved and who are not. When the matter is now heard and disposed of finally after hearing the arguments, this court is not bound by the interim directions and methods that are attempted for disbursal of interim relief, etc. Secondly, it has also now become impossible to pursue the approaches, after the arguments are made in detail. Thirdly, the industrial dispute which has commenced has also to end. As such, the matter is considered as per the pleadings and evidence on record. 5.2. In matters like this, though in exceptional cases, certain fence sitters will join late, it is incumbent that the Court goes as per the pleadings of the parties. In this regard, in the Claim Petition, filed by the Dharmapuri Mamata Kanima Desiaya Thozilalar Sangam (INTUC), it is stated in paragraph No.2 as follows : "2. The Petitioner, at the outset submits that the workmen whose name appear in the annexure to this claim statement are chiselmen & Assistants engaged by the Respondent, in the Various establishments i.e. Mines & Quarries located in Tamil Nadu, and members of the Petitioner Union." 5.3. The Annexure containing 65 names is as follows : "Names of Chiselmen & Assistants who were refused employment, and members of the petitioner union ----- 1. S.Govindhan 2. S.Palanimuthu 3. S.Mannathan 4. G.Manikam 5. S.Angamuthu 6. S.Chinnaponnu 7. Sivaraji 8. K.Chinnasamy 9. K.P.Maadhu 10. S.Karupuchetty 11. S.Arumugam 12. S.Thangavel 13. S.Ammasi 14. R.Muthu 15. C.Periyannan 16. N.Poomalai 17. Angappan 18. S.Poomalai 19. V.Chinnaraji 20. V.Cithan 21. Chinnathambi 22. Gopal 23. P.Raji 24. R.Rajendran 25. P.Chetty 26. C.Rathinam 27. A.Govindhan 28. C.Raji 29. K.Pachiannan 30. C.Mani 31. K.Mani 32. P.Angamuthu 33. R.Kandhasamy 34. R.Muthu 35. K.Palaniappan 36. M.Ayannan 37. P.Magalingam 38. M.Chinnadurai 39. S.Chinnadurai 40. S.Govindhasamy 41. S.Chinnakannu 42. K.Pachiyannan 43. R.Karuppaiya 44. M.Govindhan 45. P.Thirupathy 46. G.Muniappan 47. Kannan 48. Govindharaji 49. V.Chinnaraji 20. V.Cithan 21. Chinnathambi 22. Gopal 23. P.Raji 24. R.Rajendran 25. P.Chetty 26. C.Rathinam 27. A.Govindhan 28. C.Raji 29. K.Pachiannan 30. C.Mani 31. K.Mani 32. P.Angamuthu 33. R.Kandhasamy 34. R.Muthu 35. K.Palaniappan 36. M.Ayannan 37. P.Magalingam 38. M.Chinnadurai 39. S.Chinnadurai 40. S.Govindhasamy 41. S.Chinnakannu 42. K.Pachiyannan 43. R.Karuppaiya 44. M.Govindhan 45. P.Thirupathy 46. G.Muniappan 47. Kannan 48. Govindharaji 49. M.Chinnappan 50. C.Aiyyasamy 51. S.Gopal 52. V.Chinnathambi 53. V.Arumugam 54. C.Duraisamy 55. C.Krishnan 56. Gowrappan 57. V.Kulla Chetty 58. Duraisamy 59. V.Periyathambi 60. A.Palani 61. M.Ponnusamy 62. C.Govindhan 63. C.Thangam 64. Mathu 65. Natarajan" 5.4. As per the language used in the heading, and the image as such, it would be clear that the said union has filed a list in Annexure. It is in sync with the pleading paragraph No.2 of the claim statement. However, the confusion arose only because an Annexure - II is wrongly annexed with the claim of the second union. The same reads as follows:- "Names of Chiselmen & Assistants who were Refused employment and members of the Petitioner Union. ----- 1. I.Chinnadhurai 2. R.Muthusamy 3. R.Govindappan 4. R.Govindhan 5. K.Raji 6. K.Vellaiyan 7. P.Mani 8. I.Madhu 9. K.Aiyandhurai 10. P.Muthusamy 11. V.Ammasi 12. C.Nagaraj 13. T.Muniyappan 14. Perumal 15. Sampath 16. U.Kumar 17. P.Venkatasamy 18. C.Krishnan 19. M.Murugan 20. Muniappan 21. Mani 22. Sanmuga Raji 23. R.Kannan 24. K.Bupalan 25. R.Sarvesan 26. Shrithar 27. P.Mani 28. M.Govindhan 29. M.Govindharasa 30. M.Venkatesan 31. S.Krishnamurthy 32. Shiva 33. Karuppusamy 34. Ponnu Raman 35. S.Selvam 36. N.C.Govindasamy 37. Venkatappan 38. V.Kuppusamy 39. Balragi 40. Ellumalai 41. Krishnan 42. Durai 43. R.Selvam 44. Mathaiyan 45. Chaker 46. Palani 47. Karappusamy.N 48. Saravanan 49. Subaiya 50. Ganasan 51. Mani 52. Chinnabaiyan 53. Govindhan" 5.5. The pleading of the second union, namely, Mettur General Workers Union is as follows and it does not refer to any Annexure:- "7. The petitioner states that they confine the case to chislemen numbering 79 of Yellikaradu and 40 Karungal Anai Quarries in Mettur Dam. The petitioner states that the chislemen are working in various gangs." 5.6. As a matter of fact, the said Annexure - II, containing 53 names, does not find place anywhere in the original records. There is no such second annexure containing 53 names in the original claim statement or the second claim statement filed by the second union or anywhere during the proceedings in trial. As a matter of fact, the said Annexure - II, containing 53 names, does not find place anywhere in the original records. There is no such second annexure containing 53 names in the original claim statement or the second claim statement filed by the second union or anywhere during the proceedings in trial. The same has somehow wrongly found its place. 5.7. Thus it can be seen that it filed the Claim Petition on behalf of118 workmen, however, it did not furnish the names, that it ought to have. However, in the proof affidavit, of the 118, mentioned the 106 names alone, and the following is the said list:- Ex-chiselmen comparison list between the Claim Statement of I.D.66 of1990 and Proof Affidavit and the list furnished in the Hon'ble High Court of Madras on 10.11.2020 by CITU Union. 5.8. Therefore, the claim has to be restricted to the said 106 workmen alone. In an exceptional case, a fence sitter may come belatedly or there may be omission of names. But, there cannot be a substitution of names or a new list before the High Court. It is claimed by this Union (Mettur General Workers Union) that merely because the first union has become defunct, 58 from the said union have now become members. Therefore, there is no pleading that anybody was left out from mentioning before the Tribunal. If 58 have crossed over, the same should only be from the list filed by the said union in the claim statement. If it is not there, then, new names cannot be added at the Writ Petition stage before the High Court. Thus, I am of the view, that specific claims were made by two unions on behalf of the workmen who were members before the Tribunal. The first union has furnished a list of 65 workmen. The second union furnished a list of 106 workmen. 5.9. In the wake of the said lists, the management filed a specific counter in respect of the first claim statement alone. Even in that, it did not mention about Annexure - II containing 53 workmen and made a statement only about Annexure which is as follows:- "2. Neither the petitioner nor the list of members numbering of the 65, indicated in the petition are workmen of the respondent herein. The claim on this aspect is denied. Even in that, it did not mention about Annexure - II containing 53 workmen and made a statement only about Annexure which is as follows:- "2. Neither the petitioner nor the list of members numbering of the 65, indicated in the petition are workmen of the respondent herein. The claim on this aspect is denied. There is no privity of contract of employer and employee relationship between the petitioners and this respondent. Several attempts of this nature have been made earlier by certain persons including petitioners who filed the writ petition in W.P.No.30755 of 1989 on the file of High Court claiming the same benefits as found herein and the same was dismissed stating that the relationship of worker and employer has to be proved first." 5.10. Thus, it can be seen that the management did not contest the number of workmen involved. Its defence in general was that there is no privity of contract or employer-employee relationship. If it is the case of the management that 65 workmen, mentioned by the first union or 106 workmen, mentioned by the second union were incorrect, a plea ought to have been taken before the Tribunal during the trial. Only during 17B wages and interim relief, the management raised the dispute. In the absence of any pleading to the contrary or any attempt being made during the trial to discredit the number or dispute that a particular workman was never employed or incorrectly added to the list, I hold that all the 65 workmen, mentioned in Annexure of the first Claim Petition and 106 workmen, mentioned in the proof affidavit of the second Claim Petition, are the workmen involved in the Industrial Dispute. Any relief granted or denied will relate only to the 171 them dehors any list that may subsequently produced. The names are detailed above. The new lists that are produced before this Court or the subsequent E-Form etc., cannot be accepted.Accordingly, the question is answered. F. Question No.ii: 6. The primary case of the management is that it is a works contract entrusted to the head of the gang. He is paid as per the delivery of the finished product and he only engages the other Chiselmen. Therefore, it is a 'contract for work'. The copy of the memorandum of agreement is marked as Ex.W-4 . The primary case of the management is that it is a works contract entrusted to the head of the gang. He is paid as per the delivery of the finished product and he only engages the other Chiselmen. Therefore, it is a 'contract for work'. The copy of the memorandum of agreement is marked as Ex.W-4 . Though a reading of a similar agreement has some features pointing towards the claim of the management, what transpires on the ground is quite the opposite. Firstly, there is direct supervision. Secondly, the attendance register is maintained. Thirdly, wages are shared as per attendance. Fourthly, wages are recovered from the Chiselmen and attendants for any mistake. Ex.W-2 is a show cause notice issued. Ex.W-3 Ex.W-5 etc., point out towards the bonus claim. It can be seen that if it is a works contract, there is no question of further relegating them to a contractor. Ex.W-6 was appointing a contractor, which was later withdrawn. Above all, when the workmen resorted to strike, Ex.W-8 to W- 10 were issued warning them to return to duty. All the above categorically demonstrates that it is only direct employment on a piece rate basis and it is not a contract for work. Merely because the workmen are paid at piece rate, it will not disentitle them from claiming employee status. Even as per the agreement, it can be seen that the agreement holder agrees to do the work, and he is not an independent contractor. 6.1. In this regard, while considering a similar contract, in Dharangadhra Chemical Works Limited Vs. State of Saurashtra and Ors., 1956 SCC OnLine SC 11 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as follows : " 29. As regards the second feature relied on for the appellants it is contended that the agarias are entitled to engage other persons to do the work, that these persons are engaged by the agarias and are paid by them, that the appellants have no control over them and that these facts can be reconciled only with the position that the agarias are independent contractors. This argument, however, proceeds on a misapprehension of the true legal position. The broad distinction between a workman and an independent contractor lies in this that while the former agrees himself to work, the latter agrees to get other persons to work. This argument, however, proceeds on a misapprehension of the true legal position. The broad distinction between a workman and an independent contractor lies in this that while the former agrees himself to work, the latter agrees to get other persons to work. Now a person who agrees himself to work and does so work and is therefore a workman does not cease to be such by reason merely of the fact that he gets other persons to work along with him and that those persons are controlled and paid by him. What determines whether a person is a workman or an independentcontractor is whether he has agreed to work personally or not. If he has, then he is a workman and the fact that he takes assistance from other persons would not affect his status. The position is thus summarised in Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 14, pp. 651-52: “The workman must have consented to give his personal services and not merely to get the work done, but if he is bound under his contract to work personally, he is not excluded from the definition, simply because he has assistance from others, who work under him”. (See also Grainger v. Aynsley & Co. [ LR [1880] 6 QBD 182 ] ; Weaver v. Floyd [ (1852) 21 LJ QB 151 ] and Whitely v. Armitage [ (1864) 16 WR 144] ). 30. In the instant case the agarias are professional labourers. They themselves personally work along with the members of their families in the production of salt and would, therefore, be workmen. The fact that they are free to engage others to assist them and pay for them would not, in view of the above authorities, affect their status as workmen." 6.2. Accordingly, I find that the labour court has applied its mind and rightly exercised its discretion to hold that there is an employer-employee relationship. G. Question No.iii: 7. Once, the employer-employee relationship is established, it is the case of the management that the workmen had abandoned duty. However, the evidence on record is otherwise. It is the specific case of the workmen that on 18.12.1989 and 20.12.1989, the workmen reported for duty and they were refused employment. No contra evidence is let in by the management. Thus, if the non-employment is by way of a penalty for the strike, then there was no domestic enquiry. However, the evidence on record is otherwise. It is the specific case of the workmen that on 18.12.1989 and 20.12.1989, the workmen reported for duty and they were refused employment. No contra evidence is let in by the management. Thus, if the non-employment is by way of a penalty for the strike, then there was no domestic enquiry. Otherwise, it would amount to retrenchment as per Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act, thus attracting Section 25F of the I.D. Act. In this regard, useful reference can be made to paragraph No.4 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M.C.D Vs. Praveen Kumar Jain and Ors., (1998) 9 SCC 468 . 7.1. Further, the conciliation was pending and no prior permission was also taken as per Section 33 of the I.D Act. Thus, the action of the management is void as per the dictum of the Hon’ble Constitution of Bench of the Supreme Court of India in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal Varma and Ors., (2002) 2 SCC 244 (paragraphs Nos.13-15). Thus, viewing from any angle, the non-employment cannot be justified. For the strike, which was generally resorted to by all concerned seeking implementation of a settlement, it is unduly harsh and grossly disproportionate to terminate such a huge number of employees en masse who had put in more than 10 years of service. H. Question No.iv: 8. This dispute started in the year 1989. Now, 36 years have gone by.The activities of the management have also come to stand still. Almost all the workmen have attained the age of superannuation. Many of them have also died. Therefore, confirming the order of reinstatement will not be appropriate and compensation in lieu of reinstatement and all other claims can be ordered. To arrive at the quantum of compensation, firstly the claim of the workmen that they have put in more than 10 years of service is considered. Secondly, the wages as per the voucher in the year 1989 cannotbe now considered, and again, the same was on a piece rate basis. It can be seen that pending the Writ Petition also, except in 5 cases, no other interim payment or 17B wages were paid. The financial condition of the management is also said to be poor. Secondly, the wages as per the voucher in the year 1989 cannotbe now considered, and again, the same was on a piece rate basis. It can be seen that pending the Writ Petition also, except in 5 cases, no other interim payment or 17B wages were paid. The financial condition of the management is also said to be poor. Thus, balancing the interests of both sides, this Court is of the view that each of the workmen (65 + 106 = 171) will be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,75,000/- each. The employees shall with such proof at their command, including identity card etc., make a claim and the management, upon satisfying that the workmen were Chiselmen or Assistants in the said quarries who are mentioned in the above lists in the Industrial Dispute, disburse the amount. In any exceptional case, if there is a genuine dispute as to the identity, it will be open for the workman to establish his case by filing a petition under Section 33 (C)(2) of the Act, in which case, the amount will be awarded with further interest by the Tribunal in case if it finds the claim justified. In case, the workmen have died, upon proof of death certificate and legal heirship certificate, the amount shall be disbursed to their legal heirs. If the legal heirs consent, it can be disbursed to any one of them as agreed. I. The Result: 9. In case, the workmen have died, upon proof of death certificate and legal heirship certificate, the amount shall be disbursed to their legal heirs. If the legal heirs consent, it can be disbursed to any one of them as agreed. I. The Result: 9. W.P.Nos.2208 of 2002 and 7814 of 2003 are disposed of on the following terms : (a) The award of the Industrial Tribunal, dated 22.06.2001 made in I.D.No. 66 of 1990 shall stand confirmed inasmuch as it finds that there is an employer-employee relationship and that the non-employment of the workmen was unjustified; (b) In respect of the relief granted, the award is set aside and modified and in lieu of reinstatement and all other claims, a compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- to each of the 171 workmen is ordered to be paid; (c) Within six weeks from the date of receipt of the website-uploaded copy of this order, without waiting for the certified copy of the order, the workmen or their legal heirs, as the case may be, shall claim by filing a memo along with the copy of this order with such proof before the management, Tamilnadu Minerals Limited; (d) Within 12 weeks from the receipt of the individual claim and upon satisfaction as to the identity, the compensation amount shall be disbursed to the workmen or the legal heirs as the case may be; (e) If the amount is not disbursed within the time prescribed, thereafter, the same shall be disbursed with further interest at the rate of 9%per annum from today till the date of disbursement; (f) There shall be no order as to costs.