RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) THE present application is filed by Indian Dyestuff Industries Limited challenging the judgement and award dated 14/2/2000 of the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara, in Misc. Application (IT) No. 8/1999, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-D, and also, the judgement and award dated 8/4/1999 of the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Approval Application (IT) No. 173/1997, which is produced at Annexure-C. ( 2 ) THE petition was filed on 19th July, 2000 and the Court issued Rule and notice as to interim relief on 7th August, 2000. The Court was also pleased to grant stay of the impugned awards till the returnable date, that is, after six weeks. The said ad interim relief continued till 21st November, 2000, when this Court made ad interim relief as interim relief and ordered the matter to be placed for final hearing. No appearance is caused by the respondent-workman so far before this Court. ( 3 ) MR. K. M. Patel, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, invited the attention of the Court to the contents of the Annexure-B, which is the show cause notice dated 28th January, 1997, wherein the details are set out about the conduct of the respondent-workman, who is shown to have remained absent on number of occasions in the year 1989, 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996. It is the case of the petitioner that after the said show cause notice a charge-sheet was served and thereafter, dismissal order came to be passed on 29th September, 1997. As the proceedings of Reference (IT) No. 136/1988 were pending, the petitioner filed the present Approval Application (IT) No. 173/1997, which came to be dismissed by an order dated 8th April, 1999 on account of default on the part of the petitioner and in absence of the witnesses and evidence. ( 4 ) THE petitioner-company then filed a Miscellaneous Application (IT) No. 8/1999 in Approval Application No. 173/1997 setting out the reasons that as during that period the Company was in financial difficulty and the proceedings under section-25 (N) of the I. D. Act were going on, the attention of the Company was focused in those proceedings and therefore, the representative of the Company could not remain present. ( 5 ) THE respondent-workman did file his reply to the said application by Exh. 7 and contested the same. ( 5 ) THE respondent-workman did file his reply to the said application by Exh. 7 and contested the same. ( 6 ) THE learned Judge while narrating the facts in paragraph-4 has stated that, "granting of the application will result into grave injustice to the respondent-workman and hence, a person, who is negligent, is not required to be helped in any manner". It is also stated that, "the poor respondent-workman, who has received justice by facing inconvenience, will be deprived of the same if the main application is ordered to be heard on merits". It is also recorded that, "the reasons, which are given for the restoration, are not proper and simple enough to be accepted". Besides this, no other reasons are set out in the judgement and award dated 14th February, 2000, by which the Miscellaneous Application filed for restoration also came to be rejected. ( 7 ) MAY be that the petitioner was negligent at the time of hearing of the Approval Application, but, the fact remains that there was no adjudication on merits of the issue involved in the matter. More particularly, when the respondent-workman, who is shown to be in the habit of remaining absent and even after having written number of apology letters, continued with the same habit of remaining unauthorisedly absent. Not only that in the year 1996, two suspension orders were required to be passed. It cannot be said that there was no right, which accrued, in favour of the respondent-workman by dismissal of the Approval Application. ( 8 ) IN view of the above discussion, with a view to see that there is an adjudication on merits of the issue involved in the matter, the awards of the Court below are quashed and set aside. The Approval Application No. 173/1997 is ordered to be heard on merits. To see that the respondent-workman is compensated for the inconvenience, costs of Rs. 3500. 00 is awarded to the respondent-workman. The petition is, accordingly, allowed. Rule is made absolute. .