Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J. :- All these three appellants, by special leave, arise out of the Interim Awards dated December 19, 1967 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar in Miscellaneous Case Nos. 120, 123 and 124 of 1967.

2. There appears to have been a dispute between the appellant and its employees in respect of bonus for the year 1962-63. That was the subject of a Reference by the State Government and was pending adjudication before the Tribunal as Miscellaneous Case No. 11 of 1967.

3. In the meanwhile, the appellant, on the basis of certain allegations of misconduct against the workmen, took disciplinary proceedings and ultimately passed orders of dismissal. The workmen concerned, filed applications before the Tribunal, under S. 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) on the ground that the appellant has committed that the appellant has committed a breach of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act inasmuch as the orders of dismissal have been passed in violation of the said, provisions. On January 31, 1967, the workmen filed applications before the Tribunal for directing the appellant to pay them full wages during the pendency of the adjudication of their complaints filed under S. 33A. On August 7, 1967, the Tribunal issued notice to the appellant; and on August 9, 1967, the applications were directing to be posted for hearing on December 21, 1967.

4. In the meanwhile, on November 28, 1967, the workmen filed fresh applications, claiming interim relief, for payment of half the wages. These applications were directed to be posted on December 4, 1967 to be heard in the presence of parties. On December 4, 1967, according to the Tribunal, the copies of the petition, filed by the workmen, were given to the representative of the appellant and the hearing was adjourned to December 15, 1967. On December 15, 1967, the Tribunal, after hearing parties, reserved orders. On December 19, 1967, the Tribunal passed the Interim Awards directing the appellant to give half wages to the workmen and the said rate was to be on the basis of the wages they were getting at the time of their dismissal. A further direction was given that the wages so ordered to be paid will include also Dearness Allowance. The Award, after being sent to the Government, was ultimately pronounced on January 19, 1968. As three Interim Awards were passed in the three applications filed by the workmen, these three appeals have been filed in this Court.

5. Mr. Daphtary, learned counsel for the appellant, referred us to the various endorsements made in the Order-sheet of the Tribunal, as well as to the statements in the affidavit filed by the appellant s Works Manager, and pointed out that, as a matter of fact, his clients had no knowledge of the filing of the applications dated November 28, 1967. According to the learned counsel, the appellant s representative because aware of these applications only on December 15, 1967, whens he appeared before the Tribunal in connection with the main dispute, namely, Reference No. 11 of 1967 which was posted on that day. On coming to know then that the applications for interim payments were being taken up, a request was made to the Tribunal for adjourning the matters to enable the appellant to file its objections to the grant of the relief claimed by the workmen. It is the contention of the learned counsel that this request, which is a very reasonable one, was refused by the Tribunal and the Interim Awards, under challenge, came to be passed. That is, in short, the grievance of the appellant is that the Interim Awards were made without being given an opportunity to place its objections before the Tribunal. Mr. Daphtary drew our attention to the various endorsements made in the Order-sheet and the different phraseology, which according to him, have been used therein whenever the parties represented by their counsel or their authorised agent appeared before the Tribunal. In fact, the learned counsel ur