JUDGMENT
R. Rajendra Babu, J.
1. The order of the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha in ID 13/2001 is under challenge at the instance of the petitioners, TCM Employees’ Union, Kalamassery and three other unions.
2. By Exhibit P2 award the Industrial Tribunal granted permission for closure of the industry TCM Ltd., Kalamassery. Earlier the management approached the Government for permission for closure of the factory. By order dated November 29, 2000, the Government refused permission. Dissatisfied with the above order, the management filed a review petition on December 5, 2000 under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act. After hearing the management and the trade unions, the Government referred the matter for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha, The Industrial Tribunal thereafter passed Exhibit P2 award granting permission to the management for the closure of factory at Kalamassery. The above order is under challenge in both these original petitions.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the management.
4. On going through Exhibit P2 award it is seen that the award was passed without hearing the unions or the workers. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners could not appear before the Industrial Tribunal as negotiations were going on simultaneously with the management and they were under the impression that such negotiations would materialise. It was on the basis of such a bona fide belief that the unions failed to appear before the Tribunal. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be plausible and acceptable. The Government examined the situations and refused sanction for closure of the establishment. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the management has got four factories at different places in this country and only the factory at Kalamassery is running on loss and the other factories are running on profit and the alleged loss to the establishment at Kalamassery is only temporary and the same can be rectified by proper management and other remedial measures. In fact, the workmen could not put forward their suggestions and their commitments for retaining the establishment in a running condition before the Tribunal. Hence I think it just and proper to afford an opportunity to the Unions and the workers to highlight their grievances and their suggestions before the Tribunal and for that purpose the award has to be set aside and the matter remanded to the Tribunal.
5. The learned counsel for the management submitted that the award has already taken effect and the factory had already been closed. The management can raise the contention before the Tribunal and if the closure is a bar for reconsideration, they are at liberty to raise the same contention before the Tribunal. If any such contention is raised, the Tribunal shall consider the same.
6. In the result O.P. 23080/2002 and 29614/2002 are allowed. Exhibit P2 award passed by the Industrial Tribunal allowing the management for closure of the factory is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on October 30, 2003. The matter shall be disposed of within three months from the date of appearance of parties.