JUDGMENT Deepak Verma, J. 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated August 28, 1999, passed by Labour Court, Ujjain, whereby it has dismissed petitioner's application filed for setting aside of the ex parte award passed against the petitioner by the said Authority, on January 5, 1991. Petitioner contended that no fresh notice of the hearing fixed before Labour Court for October 6, 1990 was issued to the petitioner. Thus it could not have appeared on October 6, 1990. 2. It is not in dispute that when the reference was made to the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, petitioner was noticed and it had also put in appearance for the first time on May 2, 1990. But a fresh notice was directed to be issued to the petitioner vide order sheet of the Labour Court dated September 3, 1990. In view of these averments being made, this Court was pleased to requisition the records of the Labour Court of the industrial dispute case as well as that of the M.J.C. No. 2/91. The Labour Court rejected petitioner's application basically on two grounds- (1) that the petitioner already had a notice for the dates of hearing before the Labour Court (2) that the petitioner's application was barred by limitation. 3. Since the contention of the petitioner throughout had been that no notice was ever received by the petitioner, this Court was pleased to issue show-cause notice to the respondents. Respondent No. 2 the employee has submitted his reply. In the reply it has been denied by the said respondent that petitioner did not have any notice of the hearing. It has been contended that after the order dated September 3, 1990 was passed, petitioner was issued fresh notice which was duly served on it but still it preferred to remain absent. It has further been contended that petitioner has been callous and negligent in prosecuting the matter before the Labour Court, which resulted in passing of legal and valid Award in favour of respondent- employee. Lastly it was contended that the matter being, one under Article 227 of the Constitution, does not call for any interference as no perversity can be found in the order passed by the Labour Court. 4. In the light of the aforesaid pleadings of parties I have heard them at length and perused the record. Lastly it was contended that the matter being, one under Article 227 of the Constitution, does not call for any interference as no perversity can be found in the order passed by the Labour Court. 4. In the light of the aforesaid pleadings of parties I have heard them at length and perused the record. Record shows that after the order dated September 3, 1990 was passed petitioner was issued a notice, which it had received. This is manifest from the acknowledgment available on the record of the Labour Court. Petitioner even after receipt of the said notice, failed to appear before the Labour Court on October 6, 1990. Thus the Labour Court was justified in proceeding ex parte against it. Even otherwise I find no justification in the order of the Labour Court dated September 3, 1990, whereby fresh notice was directed to be issued to the petitioner, for the simple reason that petitioner had already a notice pursuant to which it had put in appearance. Thus the question of sending fresh notice for each date of hearing is neither the requirement of law nor has been provided in any procedure. It was the duty of the petitioner to have remained vigilant and careful to note the dates of hearing, even if the Presiding Officer was not present. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussion I find that no case for interference is made out. The Labour Court was justified in rejecting petitioner's application filed for setting aside the ex parte Award. The grievance of the petitioner that its application filed for setting aside the ex parte Award has been disposed of without giving any opportunity to lead evidence is also false and baseless. Record of the M. J.C. shows that petitioner was given more than six opportunities to lead evidence in support of the application filed by it, but it failed to lead any evidence. Thus the Labour Court did not have any choice but to hear arguments to decide it on merits. The grievance of the petitioner in this regard is wholly erroneous and against the record available with this Court. 6. No further point was urged before this Court. 7. On consideration of the whole matter, I find that there is no scope for any interference in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The same is hereby dismissed with cost. 6. No further point was urged before this Court. 7. On consideration of the whole matter, I find that there is no scope for any interference in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The same is hereby dismissed with cost. Counsel's fee Rs. 2000/-if certified. Records of the Court below be sent back immediately. 8. C.C. to both with 2 days on payment.