The Tribunal is entitled to accept affidavits as evidence, even if the deponents do not present themselves for cross-examination, if the Rule making it mandatory for them to do so is not in force at the time of the enquiry.

Srinivasan, J

These writ petitions arise out of a dispute relating to bonus for the year 1978-79 raised by workers in powerloom and handloom factories. The reference made by the Government contained two issues (1) whether the demand for payment of bonus for 1978-79 to the employees employed in the powerloom factories and under the handloom master weavers is justified; if so, to fix the quantum of bonus : (2) whether the amount paid for festival holiday at the rate of Rs. 3/- is justified, if not to what relief they are entitled.

2. The Industrial Tribunal answered the first question in favour of the workers and held that they would be entitled to the minimum bonus of 8.33%. As regards the second question, the Tribunal held that it would not be a matter falling within the jurisdiction of the tribunal and it is for the individual workman to put forward his claim under Section33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, that question was not adjudicated upon by the Tribunal.

3. The contentions raised by the writ petitioners are mostly technical. According to the writ petitioners Rule 34(7) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules has been violated by the Tribunal, in as much as it had accepted 55 affidavits filed by the workers to the effect that such owner was having a factory, and it would fall within the scope of the Bonus Act. Learned counsel contended that the deponents of the affidavits should have produced themselves before the Tribunal for being cross-examined by the owners of the factories and in the absence of their offering themselves for cross-examination, the procedure adopted by the Tribunal in accepting the affidavits as such was against the express provisions of the law and thereby the principles of natural justice have been violated. Learned counsel also contended that excepting the solitary witness examined as M.W. 1, the owners of the factories were not permitted by the Tribunal to examine any other witness on their said. The first contention urged by learned counsel was that there is a discrepancy between the claim statement filed by the workers and the particulars contained in the 55 affidavits filed on their behalf and the same was overlooked by the Tribunal. The next contention put forward was that the applicability of the Act to each individual factory was not considered by the Tribunal separately. The last contention was that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in summoning 80 factory owners during the pendency of the proceedings and as they were not given any opportunity to take part in the conciliation proceedings which preceded the reference, the principles of natural justice stood violated.

4. Before dealing with each contention, the following facts have to be referred to. After the reference was taken by the Tribunal, a claim statement was filed on behalf of the workers on November 27, 1980. The annexure to the claim statement contained the particulars of the factories and their addresses as well as the number of looms owned by each factory and the total number of workmen employed in each of them. A counter-statement was filed in common by the owners of the factories on December 26, 1980. It is to be stated at this stage that the management was represented by two Associations viz., Sankarankoil Powerloom Owners Association and Sankarankoil Master Weavers Association. The reference itself referred only to two Associations and not to the individual factory owners. The validity of the reference was challenged by two of the factory owners in W.P. Nos. 2174 and 2175 of 1981. That was done only after the counter-statement was filed before the Tribunal. By order dated April 27, 1981, this Court dismissed the writ petitions, observing that it will be open to the writ petitioners to raise all the contentions placed before this Court before the Tribunal in the reference proceedings and that the Tribunal will go into those contentions and adjudicate them in accordance with law. Thereafter, the Tr