Judgment ( 1. ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record of the case, I find no merit in this petition which deserves to be dismissed in limine. ( 2. ) IT is a petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It seeks to challenge an order passed by the Labour Court, which has dismissed the application made by the petitioner for setting aside of an ex parte award, dated 13-3-2001 (Annexure P-4 ). The impugned order is dated 19-3-2002 (Annexure P-9 ). ( 3. ) AN Industrial Reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act was made to the Labour Court for deciding the legality and validity of a termination order of the respondent No. 1. Petitioner was accordingly noticed. They being the employer, entered appearance and submitted their written statement. ( 4. ) SINCE later they did not appear in the Court proceedings, the Labour Court had no option but to proceed ex parte against the petitioner. Accordingly, evidence was recorded of respondent No. 1 and reference was decided on 13-3-2001 (Annexure P-4 ). Reference was answered in favour of the respondent inter alia holding that respondents services could not have been terminated and the same was held to be bad in law. It was held that respondent No. 1 has rendered more than 240 days continuous services in one calendar year in the petitioners organization hence, his services could not have been terminated by an oral order by the petitioner. It was further held that in the absence of any inquiry and charge levelled against the respondent No. 1, the impugned termination is in the nature of illegal retrenchment. Since admittedly no retrenchment compensation was paid to respondent No. 1 prior to taking extreme step of terminating his services by the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 was held entitled to be reinstated in service with full backwages. ( 5. ) PETITIONER then submitted an application (Annexure P-7) under Order 9 Rule 13 on 28-5-2001 inter alia contending therein that an ex parte award should be set aside on the ground that there is a sufficient cause for its setting aside. It was stated that on the day when the case was fixed, the petitioners officials were busy in election hence, nobody could attend the hearing. It was stated that on the day when the case was fixed, the petitioners officials were busy in election hence, nobody could attend the hearing. The learned presiding officer of the Labour Court did not accept this cause to be a sufficient one and accordingly, dismissed the application, giving rise to filing of this writ and challenging the impugned order. ( 6. ) THE question, whether there exists a sufficient cause or not in any particular case ? is a question of fact. It varies from case to case. It is essentially for the Court below to decide whether cause pleaded by the applicant constituted the sufficient cause within the meaning of Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC and secondly, whether it should be accepted or not ? Once, any finding is given by the Court below holding that there does not exist any sufficient cause for the purpose of setting aside an ex parte order suffered by the petitioner. The Writ Court in exercise of its powers is not to act as an Appellate Court. Petitioner is not an individual. It is an office - Nagar Palika Parishad. Several Officials work in the organization, any person could have come and attended the Court. It is not a case of the petitioner that all the officials working in the petitioner organization were busy in election. At least lawyer could have appeared to seek adjournment. I, therefore, do not find any ground to accept that there was a sufficient cause to enable the Labour Court to set aside an award. No submissions were made to challenge the main award on merits. Even otherwise, there is no case made out for setting aside of an award passed by the Labour Court when it proceeded to hold that termination of the respondent No. 1 is illegal. The Labour Court was conscious of the requirement to be taken note of while examining the legality and validity of direction of any work. Necessary findings have been recorded. ( 7. ) PETITION, thus, fails and is dismissed in limine