Power of Tribunal in granting interim relief.

The petitioner challenges an interim order passed by the first respondent tribunal in M.A.No.62 of 1991 in I.D.No.16 of 1991, dated 11. 1991. By this order an ad hoc relief was given by the first respondent tribunal to the members of the second respondent association.

.2. A settlement was arrived at between the second respondent association and the petitioner management under Sec.12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and was formulated with regard to clearness allowance. According to Clause 21(1) of the Settlement, the settlement came into force on 6. 1985 and was in force till 35. 1989 and shall continue to remain in force thereafter until the same is terminated by giving two months notice in writing by other parties. A notice under Sec.19(2) & (6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was given by the second respondent Union on 313.1989 for termination of the settlement dated 15. 1985 raising Charter of Demands. A subsequent Charter of Demands was raised on 35. 1989. Demand No.l(B) was with regard to dearness allowance and the demand of the second respondent Union was that the dearness allowance should be paid every month based on the previous month’s index. The question which was referred to the first respondent tribunal runs as follows:

.“...Whether the demand of the workmen for revision of Wages and Dearness Allowance is justified if so to fix the revised rates...”

3. Before the first respondent tribunal, the second respondent Union filed a claim petition praying to restore the D.A. of what each employee would have drawn if the 1985 settlement had not been concluded in the year 1978 and to restore such revision from 6. 1989 on which date the 1985 settlement was terminated. An application was taken in I.D.No.16 of 1991 praying to pass an interim award to direct the management to pay a monthly increase of Rs.500 to each employee from the month of May, 1991 and also, to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000 to each employee, and such payments may be adjusted in the final award. The said application has been numbered as I.A.No.62 of 1991.

.4. A counter affidavit was filed by the petitioner management stating that the demands will have to be adjudicated by applying region-cum-industry principle and the financial status of the petitioner company will have to be assessed before considering the demand with regard to wages and the dearness allowance and that the second respondent Union has to make out a case for revision of wages and other service conditions. It is also pointed out in the counter affidavit that the respondent Union has not disclosed any prima facie reason to justify its demands and that whatever may be the merits of the case, it is not possible for the petitioner management to consider an increase of Rs.500 per month and that the demand for lump sum payment of Rs.5,000 is wholly unjustified.

5. When the main dispute was pending, by the impugned order the tribunal, the first respondent herein allowed an application taken out by the second respondent association ordering the petitioner management to pay Rs.250 as ad hoc increase every month to each employee commencing from May, 1991 in addition to the existing monthly emoluments and also a lump sum of Rs.2,000 to each employee as interim relief. Against this order, the writ petitions have been preferred.

6. Notice of motion has been ordered by me on 1. 1992. Mr.V.Prakash, learned counsel appears for the second respondent, has taken notice and filed a counter affidavit.

7. Mr.M.R.Narayanasamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner management, refers to Chapter IV of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 wherein the powers and duties of the Conciliation Officer are set out. The learned Senior Counsel also refers to Sec.15 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also refers to Sec.l6(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 wherein the word “award” has been defined. After referring to the above mentioned provisions of the Industrial Disputes