ORDER :

H.K. Rathod, J.

Heard learned advocate Mr. N.K. Majmudar for petitioner - Company and learned advocate Ms. Hina Desai appearing on behalf of respondents - workmen on caveat.

2. In present petition, petitioner has challenged order passed by Industrial Tribunal, Baroda in Misc. Application (IT) No.6 of 2009, dated 18.3.2011, whereby Industrial Tribunal, Baroda has rejected Misc. Application filed by petitioner under Rule 26A of Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules,1966 and also confirmed award passed by Industrial Tribunal, Baroda in Complaint (IT) No.17 of 1989. The Industrial Tribunal, Baroda has also imposed cost individually Rs.5000/- each in favour of respondents - workmen.

3. The present respondents - workmen have filed Complaint (IT) No.17 of 1989 under Section 33A of Industrial Disputes Act,1947 in pending Reference (Demand) No.3 of 1987 before Industrial Tribunal, Baroda on 17.6.1989. Against aforesaid complaint, petitioner - company had filed reply on 6.7.1989. Thereafter, Industrial Tribunal, Baroda has decided aforesaid complaint in absence of petitioner. The service of respondents were terminated by letter dated 13.6.1986 during pendency of aforesaid reference No.3 of 1987 without obtaining prior permission or approval under Section 33(1) (b) / 33(3)(b) or 33(2)(b) of I.D. Act, 1947. The reply which was submitted by petitioner vide Exh.10 before Industrial Tribunal, Baroda. Before Industrial Tribunal, Baroda, one Shri S.R.Shah has filed affidavit as a complainant and also produced list of protected workmen vide Exh.15 and certain documents have also been produced by complainant before Industrial Tribunal, Baroda. Vide Exh.17 petitioner - company has also produced resolutions and certain correspondences between parties. On behalf of petitioner - company, matter was argued before Industrial Tribunal, Baroda and after completion of arguments made by company on 3.4.1992, a list of documents have been produced on record. Initially, company has filed written arguments in respect to preliminary point raised by company on the ground that complainants are not workmen within meaning of Section 2(s) of I.D. Act, 1947 and they are also not protected workmen. Therefore, question of prior permission or approval does not require to be obtained by company. On behalf of petitioner - company, no one was examined before Industrial Tribunal, Baroda in complaint. One Advocate Mr. K.D. Shah, who was engaged by company has retired from proceedings and one Advocate Mr.K.M.Shah was also engaged by company, has also retired from proceedings. After receiving retirement pursis from both advocates, the Industrial Tribunal, Baroda had issued notice on 22.1.1999 intimating to company to engage another advocate. This intimation has been received by company, even though on behalf of company, no one remained present before Industrial Tribunal, Baroda in complaint filed by respondents and number of adjournments have been given, in spite of this fact, no one remained present to appear before Industrial Tribunal, Baroda on behalf of petitioner company. Ultimately, on 26.3.1999, on behalf of respondents, Mr. M.S. Mansuri learned advocate made his submissions (arguments) which have been considered by Industrial Tribunal, Baroda and against the submissions made by Mr. Mansuri, on behalf of petitioner company, no one remained present to make submissions before Industrial Tribunal, Baroda. Therefore, ultimately, Industrial Tribunal, Baroda has passed ex-parte award against petitioner company. The Industrial Tribunal, Baroda has considered evidence of workmen and documents which have been produced by both parties and after considering submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Mansuri and in absence of petitioner company, Industrial Tribunal, Baroda has come to conclusion that Reference (IT) No.3 of 1987, a demand (dispute) raised by Union has been pending at the time when services of respondents - workmen were terminated. Vide Exh.15 along with list, certa