Judgment S.S.Saron, J. 1. This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the Kurali Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. (Bank-for short) for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for setting aside the award dated 9.12.1982 (Annexure P1) and order dated 14.12.1983 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana (respondent No. 2). The petitioner Bank has assailed the award dated 9.12.1982 on the ground that anex-parte award was passed, which is liable to be set aside. In terms of subsequent order dated 14.12.1983 (Annexure P-3) the application of the petitioner Bank to set aside the ex parte award has been declined, which is also assailed. 2. Respondent No. 4 Rajneesh Kumar was serving as a Clerk under the petitioner-Bank and he was dismissed from service on 1.2.1982 as there were serious charges against him. The respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute, which was referred by the Punjab Government to the Labour Court (respondent No. 2) for adjudication and an ex parte award was passed. The petitioner-Bank, thereafter, filed an application for setting aside the aforesaid ex parte award. However, the same has been dismissed on the ground that the same was filed beyond the statutory period of 30 days of the publication of the award which was published on 11.2.1983. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 had taken time and the case was adjourned for today. However, none has put in appearance for respondent No. 4. In any case, in the written statement filed, on behalf of the respondent-workman it is stated that the petitioner-Bank has made false averments regarding the date of receipt of notice of the Proceedings before the Labour Court (respondent No. 2). It is stated that the Labour Court did issue notices to the respondent-Bank by registered post, acknowledgement due and its receipt is a matter of record. Besides, the respondent-workman immediately on the pronouncement of the award dated 9.12.1982 wrote to the petitioner-Bank regarding award having been passed. Therefore, it is stated that it was wrong that for the first time the respondent-workman knew on 15.4.1983 regarding the passing of the award. Besides, the respondent-workman immediately on the pronouncement of the award dated 9.12.1982 wrote to the petitioner-Bank regarding award having been passed. Therefore, it is stated that it was wrong that for the first time the respondent-workman knew on 15.4.1983 regarding the passing of the award. It is however, admitted that an application was filed for setting aside the ex parte ]award on 12.5.1983 but the same, it is stated, was beyond the period of limitation from the date of notification of the award which was published on 11.2.1983 and the Labour Court had become funtus officio. 3. Mr. Jagdeep Bains, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Co-operative Bank submits that the award passed by the Labour Court is based on no evidence and it is only the bald assertion of the workman which has been taken into account. Besides, it is contended that the Labour Court (respondent No. 2) had dismissed the application for setting aside the ex parte award only on the ground that the application was time barred inasmuch as the award was pronounced on 9.12.1982 and the application for setting aside the ex parte award was liable to be filed within 30 days which was not done. Therefore, the statutory period of 30 days had expired and thus, the application was barred by time. In support of her contention, learned counsel cites State of Punjab V/s. Kashmir Singh and Anr., 2003 135 PLR 808. 4. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Bank and also gone through the reply of the respondent-workman. It is appropriate to note that the Labour Court respondent No. 2 in its impugned award dated 09.12.1982 has merely recorded that the workman appeared as his own witness and stated that he worked with the respondent for about two years and two months and he was drawing salary of Rs. 625/- per month and was illegally terminated on 1.2.1982. On the basis of the said ex parte evidence led by the respondent-workman, he has ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages. It was directed that he shall report for duty within ten days of the enforcement of the award. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Kashmir Singh and Anr. On the basis of the said ex parte evidence led by the respondent-workman, he has ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages. It was directed that he shall report for duty within ten days of the enforcement of the award. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Kashmir Singh and Anr. (supra) in somewhat similar circumstances where an ex parte award had been passed and the Labour Court ordered reinstatement relying on the statement of the workman without any documentary evidence to prove his case held that the circumstances entitled the State to be given a chance to defend itself. Accordingly, the ex parte award in the said case was quashed. The case in hand is similar inasmuch as, there is only bald statement of the workman that his services were terminated illegally and that he had worked with the petitioner-Bank for about two years and two months. The petitioner Bank did file an application for setting aside the ex parte award which as already noticed was dismissed on the ground that the same was filed beyond the statutory period of 30 days and was thus barred by time. Therefore, it was dismissed on technical ground and the fact whether notice had indeed been served upon the respondent, was not considered. It has also been brought to my notice that respondent No. 4 has left the service of the Bank in 1988 and has, thereafter, joined elsewhere. 5. For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Writ Petition is allowed. The Award dated 9.12.1982 (Annexure P1) and the order dated 14.12.1983 (Annexure P3) are set aside and quashed and the matter is remitted to the Labour Court to give an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence that they want to. The parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 24.3.2005 on which date the Labour Court shall issue fresh notice to Shri Rajneesh Kumar, respondent No. 4 and, thereafter, consider the matter afresh in accordance with law.