JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the award passed by the Labour Court Annx. 4 dated 28-1-1984. 2. Non-petitioner No. 1 moved the State Government for making a reference challenging his termination by the Assistant Engineer, PWD (B & R), Churu. It is alleged that he continuously worked form 1-7-1979 to 31-12-1979 on the post of Beldar and from 1-1-1980 to 31-12-1980 on the post of Munshi, thus he has completed 240 days in service therefore the Assistant Engineer could not have terminated the services of the non-petitioner No. 1 whithout complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. A reference was made by the State Government to the Labour Court and a notice was given to the petitioner on filing the claim petition by respondent No. 1 before the Labour Court. Inspite of service of notice on petitioner the petitioner did not appear before Tribunal. Therefore the Labour Court proceeded ex-parte and ultimately the Labour Court found on the basis of affidavit and evidence produced by non petitioner No. 1 that he had completed 240 days and before terminating his services the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with as such the Labour Court found that the termination of services of the petitioner is bad and directed his reinstatement with back wages @ Rs. 350/- per month. 3. Aggrieved against this the Assistant Engineer PWD (B & R), Churu has filed the present writ petition challenging the award of the Labour Court Ex. 4 dated 28-1-1984. 4. A reply has been filed by the respondent. 5. The first and foremost question before this Court is as to why this Court should interefere with this matter when the petitioner was served with notice & still he did not appear before the Labour Court as a result of which an ex parte order was passed. It has not been pointed out that there was any illegality with the service of notice issued to the petitioner by the Labour Court. When the petitioner was served still he did not choose to appear before the Labour Court to prosecute the case. No justification has been shown in the present writ petition that why this court should interere with the ex parte order. When the petitioner was served still he did not choose to appear before the Labour Court to prosecute the case. No justification has been shown in the present writ petition that why this court should interere with the ex parte order. It is a sheer negligence on the part of the petitioner that inspite of service he did not choose to appear before the Labour Court. I am not inclined to countenance this negligence on the part of the petitioner so as to interfere in this matter. The ex parte order was passed on account of the negligence of the petitioner (Asstt. Engineer) and he should be held responsible after enquiry and whatever loss occurred to the State Govt. should be recoverd from the person concerned. It is the only way to teach the lesson that the court notices should not be dealt with so lightly. If the State Government is conscious that the ex parte order which has been passed by the court has caused it any financial loss then the person who is responsible for such financial loss should be taken up and recovery should be effected from him. 6. Now, coming to the question that whether in merits this Court should interfere or not. For this also learned counsel for the respondent has invited my attention to Rule 22-A of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, which reads as under: "22-A. Setting aside ex parte decision--(1) On an application made within fifteen days of the ex parte decision, the Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator may on sufficient cause being shown after notice to the opposite party set aside either wholly or in part an exparte decision; (2) The Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or Arbitratoy may on an application, extend the time of fifteen days as prescribed in sub-rule (1) on sufficient cause being shown; (3) Application under sub-rules (1) and (2) shall be supported by an affidavit." This enables the petitioner to have moved the Labour Court for setting aside ex parte decision on sufficient cause being shown. But no effort has been made to take recourse to legal provision and the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. On this count also there is no justification to interfere with the ex parte order passed by the Labour Court. 7. In the result petition is dismissed. But no effort has been made to take recourse to legal provision and the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. On this count also there is no justification to interfere with the ex parte order passed by the Labour Court. 7. In the result petition is dismissed. No orders as to costs, A copy of this order may be sent to the Chief Engineer, PWD for necessary action.Writ dismissed. *******