7. The only point urged before us, by the learned counsel for the appellants is, that the appellants were never a party to the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and in this view, directing them to comply with the terms of the award, is not maintainable. The first appellant is a party to the award in complaint No.17/99, and therefore, the direction issued cannot be questioned. As for as the second appellant is concerned, he was not shown as a respondent either in complaint No.17/99 or in I.D.No.108/93. But, the fact remains, as the Managing Director, he alone represented respondents 2 to 5 in I.D.No.108/93, as well as in complaint No.17/99. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, in I.D.No.108/93, he had admitted that he was filing the counter statement, in his capacity as one of the Directors of the said company. It is further conceded by Mr.Srinivasan that he ceased to be the Managing Director of Kilburn Electricals Limited as on 28.12.1999, when his period of appointment ended, thereby showing, admittedly, on the date of violation of Section 33 of the Act, he was the Managing Director. When the employees Union had filed W.P.No.1411/2003, to pass an order on the complaints under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, a direction was given by this Court to the Government, to consider the petitioner's representation and in pursuance of the said order, a G.O. was passed for non implementation of the award and settlement, holding Srinivasan is a person concerned as per the Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
