JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has challenged order Annexure - 5 dated 19th August 1992 passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Bharatpur. Under that order the learned Judge, Labour Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner, the employer, for setting aside the order dated 23rd July 1990. 2. The State Government had made a reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Sub-section (5) of Section 12 of that Act to the learned Judge, Labour Court and the said reference has been made as the workman Thandi Ram had raised industrial dispute. The dispute was as to whether the order of retrenchment made by the employer National Paints Manufacturers, Industrial Area, Bharatpur of Shri Thandi Ram son of Shri Mangal under order dated 3-9-1986 was just and legal? If so to what relief the workman was entitled? 3. It appears that the notice might have been given to the workman and employer by the State Government and for the workman Shri Brijendra Behari Sharma put in appearance. It does not appear whether anybody put in appearance on behalf of the employer. Time was sought by Shri Brijendra Behari Sharma on behalf of the workman to file his claim. But it appears the claim was not filed and the learned Judge, Labour Court under its order dated 7th December 1989 on the ground that claimant is not present passed a no dispute award and ordered that notice of award be sent for publication under Section 17(1) of the I.D. Act and application was filed by the workman to set aside the order and the learned Judge, Labour Court under its order dated 23-4- 1990 set aside its earlier order dated 7-12-1989 and directed that main file be listed before him. An application was filed by the employer to set aside the aforesaid order dated 23-4-1990 and the learned Judge, Labour Court under its order dated 19.8.1992 (Annexure-5) dismissed the application. It was held by the learned Judge that no dispute award was not passed in the presence of the workman and, therefore, merely because it was published under Section 17(1) of the I.D. Act, by the State Government, it does not make him functus -officio. 4. It was held by the learned Judge that no dispute award was not passed in the presence of the workman and, therefore, merely because it was published under Section 17(1) of the I.D. Act, by the State Government, it does not make him functus -officio. 4. Learned counsel for the employer, petitioner has contended that even no dispute award is an award, is a decision and, therefore, once exparte decision has been made before it could be set aside on the application of any of the parties,it was necessary as required under Rule 22-A of the rules that a notice should have been given to the petitioner. He contended that no notice was given and, therefore, the order dated 23-4-1990 was illegal. It was further contended that once an award is published, at any rate, a right has accrued and vested in the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner must have been given a notice before the same could be set aside. 5. I find no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not every illegality which requires correction at the end. It will be seen from the facts that it does not appear that anybody appeared on behalf of the employer before the Judge, Labour Court after the State Government made a reference to that court. It does not appear that any claim was at all filed on behalf of the employer before the Judge, Labour Court. It can, therefore, be said that there was no adjudication so far as dispute referred to the learned Judge, Labour Court is concerned. Rule 22 of the rules to my mind have been made to enable the court to proceed further so that the disposal of the reference cases may not be delayed, what has been provided is that if any of the parties fail to attend or to be represented before the Labour Court, that the Labour Court may proceed as if the parties have been duly attended or represented. It is deemed provision and a party despite the fact that it has failed to attend shall be deemed to have been present so that the court may proceed further with the reference made to it and to adjudicate it once for all. 6. It is deemed provision and a party despite the fact that it has failed to attend shall be deemed to have been present so that the court may proceed further with the reference made to it and to adjudicate it once for all. 6. Rule 22-A will apply only in case of exparte decision and it is well known the expression decision means a decision on merits and if even the claim is not filed, may be that the courts are passing no dispute award, may be that they are referred to the Government for publication of the so called award, it cannot be said that the aforesaid award under the circumstances is published, the Labour Court becomes functus officio. In such cases in my opinion, Rule 22-A of the rules is not attracted. If that be so, it can be said that if an exparte order is made on the ground that plaintiff is not present and on that day even defendant is not present, then an application by setting aside the exparte order or the order dismissing the suit/application in default, before the order can be recalled, it is not necessary that the opposite party should be given any notice. I do not find any case where any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution should be exercised by this court and in my opinion interference in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction will not be in the interest of justice. 7. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed summarily.Petition dismissed. *******