IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 810 of 2007 Between: Koteswara Girish ..... Appellant(s) AND The Vice President – HR, Fulford (India) Limited, Mumbai and two others. ………..Respondent(s) THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. : 810 of 2007 JUDGMENT (Per BPR,J): Heard Sri M.Pitchaiah, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, Sri C.R. Sridharan, learned counsel, appearing for the contesting respondent Nos.1 and 2, and the learned Government Pleader for Labour Court. 2. The appellant who is a workman filed this appeal aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2305 of 2007, dated 20-08-2007, in dismissing the writ petition, where he sought declaration by way of Mandamus challenging the correctness of the order, dated 20-12-2006, passed by the 3rd respondent- Labour Court in allowing an application in I.A.No.88 of 2006 in I.D.No.118 of 2004, filed by the respondents-management, on the ground that it was an ex parte order. 3. The brief facts, which led to pass the impugned order, are that in respect of orders of termination against the appellant, he raised a dispute before 3rd respondent Court and it was taken up as I.D.No.118 of 2004. At the stage of the enquiry, there was no appearance on behalf of the respondents-Management and the 3rd respondent Court passed an ex parte award, dated 14-10-2005. Thereafter, the respondents-Management came with an application in I.A.No.88 of 2006, inter alia, contending that they have no notice about ex parte proceedings. Hence, sought to provide an opportunity by setting aside the award dated 14-10-2005 and restore the I.D. to file. 3rd respondent Court after taking into consideration the evidence, adduced by both the sides, though having given a finding that the reason mentioned in the affidavit for their absence is not correct, and in fact, in spite of service of notice to the respondents-Management, they have not made appearance, but, however, with a view to give an opportunity, allowed the application. Challenging the same, the appellant filed the writ petition contending that having regard to the finding given by the 3rd respondent Court to the effect that the notice was served on the respondents-Management, 3rd respondent-Court could not have allowed the application since they do not have any valid grounds much less sufficient reason to seek any indulgence of this Court. The learned Single Judge, on reappraisal of facts and circumstances of the case, and also having found that even if the award passed by the 3rd respondent Court is challenged by the respondents-Management, it would have met with the same fate of remanding the matter to 3rd respondent Court for fresh consideration. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the petition in I.A.No.88 of 2006 was filed within the period of limitation and hence, the 3rd respondent Court did not commit any error in setting aside the award and restoring the I.D. to file for further enquiry. 4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, and also on perusal of the material placed on record, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is only to provide an opportunity to the respondents- Management to adduce evidence to pass the order after contesting only since the earlier order was not passed on merits. 5. It is now well established that it is necessary to hear the respondents and see that the parties received orders on merits after regular contest rather than allowing the application coming up for final hearing. The fact that the reasons shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application for their absence were found to be false. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it would suffice in the interest of justice to provide an opportunity to both sides for contesting the mater and pass orders on merits. 6. Therefore, we do not find any error nor warranting any interference by this Court in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. Hence, we do not see any merits in the appeal. 7. However, under the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that respondents-management should be put to some terms in allowing the said application. We modify the orders of the 3rd respondent Court to the effect that the application filed by the respondents 1 and 2 stands allowed subject to the condition of payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. It is needless to mention that the 3rd respondent Court shall expedite the hearing and disposal of the main case as expeditiously as possible, not later than within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed in part. No costs. _______________________ JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO Date: 7th August 2009 _______________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR KVR