JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by Bikaner Plaster and Minerals Indus- tries, Ltd., B 2 , Industrial Estate, Bikaner, a registered partnership firm against the order, annexure 5, dated 23 April 1977. On 20 April 1977, the Labour Court, Jaipur, rejected the application of the petitioner for setting aside the ex parse award, dated 3 August 1976, passed In Reference Case No. L. C. 99 of 1975, published on 5 October 1976. The principal ground both before the Labour Court as well as this Court, urged on behalf of the petitioner Is that there are two concerns in Bikaner, one Is the petitioner In the name and style of Bikaner Plaster and Minerals Industries, Ltd., B 2, Industrial Estate, Bikaner, and second one is Bikaner Plasters, Bikaner. These are two absolutely different concerns having nothing common. The noting of the reference was not sent to the petitioner but to the other firm. 2. In view of the above Sri Bhansali, submitted that the Labour Court, did not appreciate this distinction and as the petitioner has not been served with any notice before passing of the earlier award the Court's proceedings are illegal, null and void. No one appeared to oppose this writ petition. I have considered the submissions of Sri Bhansali and perused the order, dated QO April 1977, of the Labour Court. 3. It is obvious that the petitioner's contention that they are two absolutely different concerns has not been challenged by any reply or filing of return in this Court. In the absence of a challenge this Court have to assume that they are two different concerns. Since that is so, the mere fact that some inconsistency was there in the dates of know. ledge as alleged by the Labour Court, the petitioner cannot be deprived from the valuable statutory right of hearing. 4. The inconsistency pointed out by the Labour Court als., stand explained by the averment in Para. Since that is so, the mere fact that some inconsistency was there in the dates of know. ledge as alleged by the Labour Court, the petitioner cannot be deprived from the valuable statutory right of hearing. 4. The inconsistency pointed out by the Labour Court als., stand explained by the averment in Para. 11 of application, dated 3 November 1976, which reads as under i " That the applicant concerned received by ordinary post a notification from the Government of Rajasthan, Labour Department numbering F. 1(1) (40'/Lab./75, dated 23 September 1976, with an Intimation of the publication Case No. L. C. 99 of 1975, on 5 October 1977, addressed to Sri Bikaner Plasters." Ground (7) further clarifies the alleged discripancy which read as under i " That in the month of September 1976, we received by ordinary post the above, said communication of the Labour Department informing of the publication of the award of this Hon'ble Court, dated 3 August 1976, in Case No. L.C. 99 of 1975." 5. A right of hearing of a party in all judicial and quasi-judicial matters is a matter of great importance. Even in those cases where this right is in fact provided by statute for the same on the basis of well- recognised principles of natural justice. 6. In the instant case I am convinced that the firms being two separate concerns 83 alleged and not in dispute, the sending of notices by registered post to a different concern has resulted in serious miscarriage and failure of justice. The order of the Labour Court refusing to set aside an ex parse award, is therefore, liable to be quashed. 7. The writ petition is, therefore, accepted. The impugned order of the Labour Court, dated 20 April 1977, in Miscellaneous Application No. L C 31 of 1976 (annexure 5), is set aside. The order of the Labour Court refusing to set aside an ex parse award, is therefore, liable to be quashed. 7. The writ petition is, therefore, accepted. The impugned order of the Labour Court, dated 20 April 1977, in Miscellaneous Application No. L C 31 of 1976 (annexure 5), is set aside. Since the application for setting aside ex parse award, dated 3 August 1976, is being accepted, the natural, legal and logical consequence of it would be for award, dated 3 August 1976, in case No. L. C. 99 of 1975, decided on 25 April 1975, by Judge, Labour Court, Rajasthan, Jaipur, will stand quashed and the Labour Court is directed to re-hear the reference made by it by notification No. F 1 (t) (40)1 & E175, dated 3 April 1975, after intimation to both the parties and taking their replies and have necessary evidence afresh. Since respondent has not appeared and is a workman, there would be no order as to cost. *******