Judgment L. M. Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner in this writ application has challenged the orders passed in a proceeding started under Sec.15 (2) of the Payment of wages Act, 1936. 2. Bhikhari Mistry, Respondent No.4, filed an application, giving rise to the proceeding, on the 23rd January, 1967, before the Subdivisional Officer (Respondent No.2) claiming that his wages have not been paid by the petitioner for the period from the 3rd March, 1963, to the 31st July, 1963. He stated that he was blacksmith, working under the petitioner and was entitled to his wages at the rate of Rs.70 pert on of iron, on which he used to work. The total weight of the iron, for the purpose of payment of arrears of wages was mentioned as more than 28 tons, and a sum of Rs.2,000 and odd was claimed. There was a prayer for condonation of the delay in filing the claim application. 3. The petitioner filed his objection, denying the liability and pointing out that before the application was filed by Respondent No.4 he had admitted part-payment before the Labour Officer, Dalmianagar, by an application dated the 4th July, 1966 (Annexure T) One witness was examined in the proceeding and his deposition has been annexed to the writ application as Annexure 2. It was further mentioned that on the 30th July, 1973, a date to which the proceeding was adjourned, the petitioners lawyer could not appear in time, when the case was called out and, although the Lawyers Clerk has turned to call him the proceeding was disposed of by the learned Sub-divisional Officer by a perfunctory order, as mentioned in Annexure 3. The entire claim made by the respondent was allowed. The Counsel for the petitioner appeared soon thereafter, but was orally directed to file an application for restoration of the case under the proviso to rule 8 of the Bihar Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules, 1965. The petitioner thereafter filed such an application which was also dismissed by an endorsement made on the application itself, as will appear from Annexure 4". The petitioner then filed a miscellaneous appeal before the District Judge, which was rejected by an order as contained in Annexure 5, on the ground that the same was not maintainable. The present application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders as contained in Annexures 3 4 and 5. 4. Mr. The petitioner then filed a miscellaneous appeal before the District Judge, which was rejected by an order as contained in Annexure 5, on the ground that the same was not maintainable. The present application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders as contained in Annexures 3 4 and 5. 4. Mr. Sheo Shankar Dayal, appearing for the petitioner, has relied upon the provisions under sub rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Bihar Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules, 1965, and has contended that the learned Sub-divisional officer committed a serious error in not giving the substance of the documents before him and in not assigning reasons for his decision. The objection taken by the learned Counsel appears to be well founded. In Annexure "3" the learned sub-divisional Officer mentioned the absence of the petitioners Counsel and thereafter stated that in that situation the petitioner was directed to pay the amount claimed by the workman. The mere absence of a person against whom a claim is made cannot be the basis of an order against him. Even ex pane proceedings have to be decided in accordance with the merits of the case. The petitioner has attached a copy of the evidence of a witness, Lallan Prasad, examined before the authority. The learned Counsel has rightly said that if the authority had taken care to consider even the oral evidence of this witness, who had been examined on behalf of the workman, the entire claim could not have been allowed. I do not, however, intend to say anything on the merits of the case, but I have referred to the evidence only for the purpose of showing that the learned Sub-divisional Officer, in the present case, should have given a speaking order, as contemplated by the Rules. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that on the very face of the claim application, it was barred by limitation, and, unless the authority condoned the delay, it could not have been allowed. The learned sub-divisional Officer has completely failed to appreciate this aspect and has allowed the application in a mechanical way. The order, therefore, is clearly illegal. 6. The learned sub-divisional Officer has completely failed to appreciate this aspect and has allowed the application in a mechanical way. The order, therefore, is clearly illegal. 6. The order, which has been endorsed by the Sub-divisional Officer on the application of the petitioner under Rule 8 (Annexure 4) is also wholly illegal, inasmuch as it is stated that since a remedy by way of appeal was available to petitioner, the application was being dismissed. The proviso to rule 8 (3) of the Rules states that an ex parte order may be set aside and the application may be re-heard on good cause being shown. The petitioner attempted to show good cause within the meaning of the proviso and his prayer should have been considered on merits. That having not been done, the order in Annexure 4 is also bad. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to consider as to whether the appeal filed before the District Judge was maintainable or not. Assuming that the view taken in Annexure 5 is correct still the orders at annexures 3 and 4 have to be quashed. 7. For the reasons mentioned above, the orders contained in Annexures 3 and 4 are quashed and the matter is sent back to the learned Sub-divisional officer for a re-hearing in accordance with law. It will be open to the petitioner to appear in the proceeding on the next date and lead any evidence which he may like to. During the pendency of the present application in the High Court, the petitioner was directed to make certain deposits in the court below as a condition for the stay. That amount should remain in deposit and the learned sub-divisional Officer should pass consequential orders in regard to the along with the final order in the proceeding. 8. This writ application is accordingly allowed, but there will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.