for any negotiations subsequent to the agreement. Therefore, it goes to show that the workers have given up their rights in this regard as per Ex.M28. When the second and third respondent unions have not come forward and asked for any negotiations, they have given up their rights and this has been completely over looked and this apart, while considering the second claim made by the third respondent union, for payment of minimum wages for the year 2001-2003, the learned Industrial Tribunal recorded the findings for the period 2001-2002. The minimum bonus has been disbursed and paid to the workers and they have received that amounts also. More over, the petitioner management was able to establish their case that the mill has not gained any profit to pay their workers other than the minimum bonus. But this aspect was also completely over looked by the Tribunal. Admittedly, from the year 2000 onwards, the petitioner mill was not functioning properly for the various reasons namely due to inability and financial crisis to pay electricity charges and later it was closed down. It was also a matter of fact that stopping of production from 13.07.2003 was also established that the said period of closure was due to the disconnection of electricity supply for non payment of electricity charges by the petitioner management. The learned Industrial Tribunal ought to have dismissed the industrial dispute raised by the second and third respondents. But without considering the practical issues raised between the parties, the Tribunal has wrongly passed the impugned award. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
