-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.3664 OF 2009 Supreme Telecommunication Limited & Ors. : Petitioners V/s. Rashmikant Govind Jadhav & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.K.S.Bapat i/b. M/s.Desai & Desai Associates for the petitioners. Mr.G. Naik for the respondents. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : APRIL 3, 2009. P.C. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr.Naik for the respondents waives service. Heard by consent. 2. The learned trial Court has dismissed the application for setting aside the ex parte order on the ground that the order is not ex parte. The learned Court is of view that the order is not ex parte because reasons were given in the order. This is completely an untenable position. An order is ex parte depending on whether the matter has proceeded in the presence or absence of the other side as held by this Court in Writ Petition No.1983 of 2009 -: 2 :- (M/s.Hindustan Motors Mfg. Co. v. Sadashiv Tuklaram Salunke & Ors.) decided on 2.3.2009. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Court has not found any sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte order. I am of view that the order of the learned Industrial Court suffers from a serious error of law in holding that it is not an ex parte order and that still there was sufficient cause for not setting aside the ex parte order. 3. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- to each of the respondents. Complaint (ULP) No.201 of 2005 shall be heard and decided on merits by the Industrial Court, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case, not later than three months from the next date. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. S.A. BOBDE, J.