R. A. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) SRI Mangal Sen, respondent No. 3, was working as Conductor in the U. P. State Road transport Corporation (Petitioner) on 8th November 1977 and on 18th November 1977 the buses in which respondent No. 3 was working as Conductor were checked and it was found that number of passengers are being carried without tickets. A chargesheet was issued to him by the corporation. Thereafter, a disciplinary enquiry was held and, vide order dated 22nd December 1978, respondent No. 3 was removed from service. Thereafter Government of U. P. on 31st March, 1983 referred the dispute under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to Labour Court, Meerut for adjudication about the validity and propriety of the order of removal of respondent No. 3. Before the Labour Court both parties filed written statements and April 20, 1985 was fixed for filing rejoinder-affidavits by both parties and for framing issues. It appears on 20th April, 1985 the presiding Officer of the Labour Court had gone on leave and there was no working of the court. On 15th June, 1985 Labour Court gave ex parte award against the petitioner. Petitioner moved an application on 9th July, 1985 for setting aside ex parte award which has been rejected by the Labour Court, vide its order dated 23rd November 1985. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has challenged the order of the Labour Court dated 23rd November 1985 as well as award before this Court on the following grounds: (i) The application for setting aside ex parte award of the petitioner has been rejected by the labour Court on erroneous assumptions and on unwarranted grounds. (ii) Ex parte award of the Labour Court has been given without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, and (iii) Labour Court is not justified in holding that respondent No. 3 has not committed any misconduct. ( 3 ) AFTER the written statements were filed by the parties before Labour Court rejoinder-affidavits were required to be filed on 20th April 1985. On this date Presiding Officer of the Labour Court was absent. From the record it appears that 12th June, 1985 was fixed for the same purpose. ( 3 ) AFTER the written statements were filed by the parties before Labour Court rejoinder-affidavits were required to be filed on 20th April 1985. On this date Presiding Officer of the Labour Court was absent. From the record it appears that 12th June, 1985 was fixed for the same purpose. On which date the representative of the petitioner was not present and the Labour Court on 15th june, 1985 gave ex parte award against the petitioner, whereby, respondent No. 3 was directed to be reinstated with back wages. It is thus clear that petitioner could neither file rejoinder affidavit nor adduce any evidence before the Labour Court, and award was absolutely one sided. The application of the petitioner for setting aside ex parte award was rejected by the Labour Court only on the ground that as the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court was on leave on 20th April, 1985 it was the duty of the petitioner to find out the next date which was fixed on 12th June, 1985 and as the petitioner failed to ascertain and find out the next date, he himself is responsible and Labour Court is justified in giving the ex parte award against the petitioner because it was not the duty of the Labour Court to inform the parties about the next date. ( 4 ) THE normal procedure before the Labour Court is that whenever a date is fixed parties or their representatives are required to note the next date and sign the order sheet accordingly. On those dates where there is no sitting of Labour Court parties are not required to appear in the court and many times, on coming to know of non-sitting of the court, they do not even go to the court. In such cases unless the next date is fixed in the presence of the parties or their representatives, the labour Court cannot proceed with the case on the next date without informing the parties concerned about it. As in the present case there is nothing to show on the record that 12th June, 1985 was fixed in the presence of the petitioners representative, it was the duty of the Labour court to inform the petitioner about the next date (12th June, 1985) or any other subsequent date. As in the present case there is nothing to show on the record that 12th June, 1985 was fixed in the presence of the petitioners representative, it was the duty of the Labour court to inform the petitioner about the next date (12th June, 1985) or any other subsequent date. Labour Court was as such not justified in rejecting the petitioners application for setting aside the ex parte award without finding out as to whether next dates were fixed in presence of the petitioners representative or whether the petitioner had knowledge about the next dates. ( 5 ) THE order of the Labour Court dated 23rd November, 1985 (Annexure VII to the writ petition)is liable to be set aside. ( 6 ) AS order rejecting the application of the petitioner for setting aside ex parte award is being quashed by me, it is not necessary for me to go into the question of validity of the award passed by the Labour Court. In case the petitioners application for setting aside ex parte award is allowed, the petitioner will have all the opportunity to lead evidence and make submission before the Labour Court. In case the aforesaid application of the petitioner is dismissed by the labour Court, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the same award again along with fresh order which may be passed on his application. The petitioners right to challenge the award again remains intact. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons given above, this writ petition is partly allowed and the order of the Labour court dated 23rd November, 1985 rejecting the petitioners application for setting aside ex parte is quashed. Labour Court, Meerut is directed to decide the aforesaid application of the petitioner afresh on merit in accordance with law expeditiously. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. .