( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) THE petitioner, by this Special Civil Application has made challenge to the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad, dated 30th April 1984, made on the application filed by the petitioner on the same day. The petitioner has stated the facts in the application that the applicants therein are the workers of m/s. Excell Industries and are elected representatives of the affected parties in the above referred reference. This application has been made in Ref. (I. T.) No. 716 of 1981 which was between M/s. Excell Industries and its workmen regarding certain demands made by the workers. In the said application it was stated by the petitioner that it has come to his knowledge that Bhavnagar Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh has made a settlement in this reference, which is against the interest of the workers and the said settlement has been entered into without taking the workers into confidence. Prayer has been made that if any such settlement has been arrived at and if the same is produced before the Tribunal, then the Award in terms of the said settlement may not be passed, as the workers will be at loss in many ways. The workers have resigned from the so-called Bhavnagar Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh and therefore they do not have any power and therefore, the settlement may be cancelled and the Award need not be passed as per the settlement. The application was concluded by the petitioner stating therein that he and other applicants are the elected representatives of the workers and have right to appear in the matter, on their behalf. Papers relating to same were enclosed to the application. A request has been made to permit them to conduct the matter. The Industrial Tribunal has passed the order dated 30-4-1984 on this application and declined to entertain the same only on the ground that it had already passed the Award and as such he has become functus officio.

( 3 ) MR. T. R. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Grindlays Bank LIMITED v. Central Government industrial Tribunal , reported in 1980 (Supp.) SCC 420, contended that the order of the Industrial Tribunal is perverse on the face of it as till the Award is published under S. 17a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thirty days expiry from the publication thereof the Tribunal has all control. It is seized of the matter. It may become functus officio only after expiry of thirty days from the date of publication of the Award and not at any interim stage or prior to said stage. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Award made in this case was not even published on 30th April 1984, what to say to come into force on the said date.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent, Mr. K. S. Nanavati though admitted the position of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Grindlays Bank limited v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal , (supra) and also does not dispute factual matrix that the Award was not published on 30th April 1984, but he contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the application. It has next been contended that the application filed by the petitioner was not maintainable on other grounds also. The learned Counsel for the respondent has tried to justify the order made on said application on the grounds other than the ground on which the application was rejected.

( 5 ) ). I have given my thoughtful considerations to the submissions made by the learned Counsels for the parties.

( 6 ) IT is admitted fact that the Award was not published on 30th April 1984 and as such it has not come into force. I find sufficient merits in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Tribunal is perverse. The honble Supreme Court, in the case of Grindlays Bank LIMITED v. Central Government industrial Tribunal (supra) has held that under S. 17a of the Act, an Award beco