ORDER A.N. Varma, J. - This petition is directed against an order passed by the Prescribed Authority, appointed under the Payment of Wages Act rejecting an application filed by the petitioners for setting aside the ex parte order dated 18-10-1976, under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 9,915/-, 6120/- and 9,365/- respectively to three of its workmen namely, Abdul Waheed, Shah Mohammad and Mohammad Islam. 2. The relevant facts lie within a narrow compass. An application was filed by the aforesaid workman claiming wages from the petitioner before the Prescribed Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act, The said application was registered as Case No. PW-64/76. 11-5-1976 was fixed for the appearance of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a written statement on 25-5-1976 where after 5-8-1976 was fixed for the hearing of the case. The case was, thereafter listed on 17-9-1976. On that date the petitioner's representative did not appear. The Prescribed Authority consequently decided to proceed ex parte and recorded the statements of 'the three workmen and another witness. Orders appear to have been reserved on that date and were eventually delivered on 18-10-1976 directing the payment of the amounts mentioned above to the three workmen. On 1-11-1976 an application was filed by the petitioner for recalling the ex parte order dated 18-10-1976. It was stated that owing to serious illness of the petitioner's representative who was under the treatment of the Medical Officer, P.H.C. Pipraich Gorkhpur he could not attend the court of the Prescribed Authority on the date fixed as a result of which the Prescribed Authority proceeded ex parte and made an order for payment amounting to Rs. 25,400/-., 3. The Prescribed Authority has rejected the aforesaid application on the ground that the same was barred by limitation, computing the period of one month prescribed under Rule 8 from 17-9-1976. The Prescribed Authority has taken the view that the period of one month prescribed under the proviso to Rule 8(3) has to be computed from 17-9-1976, the date on which it decided to proceed ex parte with the case and not 18-10-1976. 4. The petitioner assails the validity of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority on the ground that the Prescribe Authority has misconstrued Rule 8 in holding that the limitation has to be counted from 17-9-1976. 5. 4. The petitioner assails the validity of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority on the ground that the Prescribe Authority has misconstrued Rule 8 in holding that the limitation has to be counted from 17-9-1976. 5. For the respondents it was submitted that the view taken by the Prescribed Authority was correct. Under the proviso to Rule 8(3) limitation has to be computed from the date on which the authority decided to proceed to hear and determine the application ex parte. 6. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. In my opinion upon a plain construction of Rule 8 of the Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules, 1937 (the Rules for short), it is apparent that the period of one month has to be computed from the date of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority on which he disposed of the application of the workmen i.e. 18-10-1976 in the present case. 7. In order to appreciate the controversy, it will be useful to extract here Rule 8 in the entirety : 8. Appearance of parties - (1) If the application is entertained, the Authority shall :call upon the employer by a notice in form E to appear before him on specified date together with all relevant documents and witnesses, if any, and shall inform the applicant of the date so specified. (2) If the employer or his representative fails to appear on the specified date, the Authority may proceed to hear and determine the application ex parte. (3) If the applicant fails to appear on the specified date, the Authority may dismiss the application : Provided that an order passed under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3) may be set aside and the application re-heard on good cause being shown within one month of the date of the said order, notice being served on the opposite party of the date fixed for rehearing." 8. The proviso to sub-section (3) of Rule 8 refers to the order passed under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3). The present is a case which is covered by sub-rule (2) and not sub-rule (3). The order which is contemplated under sub-rule is the one whereby the Prescribed Authority determines the application filed by the workmen ex parte. The proviso to sub-section (3) of Rule 8 refers to the order passed under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3). The present is a case which is covered by sub-rule (2) and not sub-rule (3). The order which is contemplated under sub-rule is the one whereby the Prescribed Authority determines the application filed by the workmen ex parte. It is the final order disposing of the application and not the order by which the Authority takes a decision to proceed ex parte. Consequently, the period of one month had to be computed from the date of the order dated 18-10-1976 by which the application of the workmen was finally disposed of determining the amounts which they were entitled to receive from the petitioner. The Prescribed Authority, was, therefore, clearly in error in rejecting the petitioner's application as barred by limitation. It is not disputed that no counter-affidavit was filed in reply to the petitioner's application. I have gone through the said application and found that the same discloses sufficient cause for the absence of the petitioner's representative on the relevant date. That being so, the Prescribed Authority ought to have allowed that application. It is unfortunate that more than 10 years have elapsed since the application was filed by the workmen and the same has not yet been disposed of on merits after hearing both sides. It is, therefore, desirable that the Prescribed Authority should dispose of the matter after hearing both the parties expeditiously giving to the case a high priority. Application may be disposed of within two months from the date on which a certified copy of this order is filed before the Prescribed Authority by either of the two parties. As no one appears on behalf of the petitioner, a certified copy of this order may be filed by the respondent-employees themselves so that the case may be disposed of expeditiously. 9. In the result. the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 21-2-1977 (Annexure 'E' to the writ petition) passed by the Prescribed Authority is quashed. The said authority shall dispose of the application filed by the respondents-workmen within the period mentioned above. There will, however, be no order as to costs.