- (1.) WHEN this case was taken up for admission, Shri B. R. Mahajan, Advocate appeared on behalf of Respondents 2 to 33 who are real contesting parties. Both the learned counsels submitted that the case may be decided without service of notice on Respondents No. 1 and 34 who are formal parties. We have also considered the matter and are of the opinion that service of notice on Respondents 1 and 34 is not necessary for the purpose of deciding this writ petition.
(2.) THE petitioner-Municipal Corporation, Amritsar has challenged the illegality of the award dated September 30, 1993 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab whereby the said Tribunal has quashed the punishment orders passed by the competent authorities and has directed the payment of monetary benefits to the workmen with effect from November 1, 1986.
(3.) THE first argument of Shri Takkar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal has committed a serious irregularity in entertaining the reference made by the Government on June 21, 1990 in respect of the punishment orders passed against various workmen between 1977 to 1988. Shri Takkar argued that no explanation whatsoever was offered by the workmen for the abnormal delay in raising the dispute and the Tribunal has completely lost sight of this aspect of the case while passing the impugned award.;