JUDGMENT The only grievance made by the State of Madhya Pradesh in this petition is that as the State was not properly served, the ex-parte award given by the Labour Court be quashed. According to it there was no service on the principal employer. Shelter is taken behind the principle contained in Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the learned counsel appearing for the State as in the case of a corporate body, it is essential to serve the principal officer, the same method should have been adopted in the present case. Either the concerned Secretary in the relevant department or the Collector of the district should have been served. The proceedings in this case were taken by respondent No. 1. According to this respondent, the relationship of master and servant was wrongly brought to an end. An ex-parte award was given on 28th April, 1992. When the petitioner came to know about it, an application under Order 9 Rule 9 was moved. The Labour Court rejected the application and refused to set-aside the ex-parte award. This Order was passed on 17th April, 1995. Copy of this is Annexure P-8. Both Annexure P-8 and original award, ex-parte award P-6 are being impugned in the present petition. While refusing to set-aside ex-parte award the Labour Court came to the conclusion that information was given to the employer and some employee did appear. It may be seen that there is nothing on the record to show that the person who appeared before the Labour Court had any authority to represent the State or the employer. Unless and until it is shown that somebody was duly authorised by the respondent to put an appearance, no cognizance could be taken of appearance of some person on behalf of the department As such the reasoning given by the Labour Court refusing to set-aside the ex-parte award cannot be sustained. Order Annexure P-8 is set-aside. This would result in setting-aside of the ex-parte award. The same is also set-aside. It is, however, made clear that notwithstanding the fact that the ex-parte award is being set-aside, the respondent No. 1 would be continued in service. This is because it is a positive case of the respondent No. 1 that no order was passed with a view to bring an end to the relationship of master and servant. It is, however, made clear that notwithstanding the fact that the ex-parte award is being set-aside, the respondent No. 1 would be continued in service. This is because it is a positive case of the respondent No. 1 that no order was passed with a view to bring an end to the relationship of master and servant. The respondent No. 1 would be paid his wages w.e.f. the date he has been permitted to join. With regard to the arrears, the matter would be decided by the Labour Court. The State would be at liberty to urge that the respondent No. 1 is not entitled to back wages as he was gainfully employed elsewhere. The respondent No. 1 would be well within his rights to urge that merely because he absented himself, his service tenure could not be brought to an end without holding an enquiry and in case such plea taken, the Labour Court would take notice of the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in 1994 (1) MPJR 129 . This petition is allowed in the manner indicated above. The respondent No. 1 would continue in service till order to the contrary is passed by the Labour Court.