Judgment :- Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. Since the issues involved in the above writ petitions have arisen out of the same facts and circumstances, a common order is passed. .3. It has been stated that the petitioner Company is a sick unit running at a heavy loss. During the years 1997 and 1998, there has been a change in the Management of the petitioner Company. Thereafter, the Board of Directors of the petitioner Company had passed a resolution, dated 26. 2000, appointing K.A.Karthik, who has filed the present writ petitions on behalf of the petitioner Company, as its General Manager. After taking over charge as the General Manager of the petitioner Company, he had taken every possible step to reduce the loss and to improve the Companys prospects. 4. It has been further stated that the first respondents in the writ petitions, had filed appeals, under Section 19(2) of the Tamil Nadu Catering Establishments Act, 1958, challenging the orders of dismissal passed against them. They had stated that they were appointed in the petitioner Company and also regularized in service. 5. It has been further stated that the Management of the petitioner Company had deputed certain persons from its office to attend to the appeals filed by the first respondents. However, due to certain problems having arisen with regard to the Management of the petitioner Company and due to the losses it had suffered, the appeals filed by the first respondent employees could not be effectively defended. Since there were no representations on behalf of the petitioner Company, on 210. 1999, it was set ex parte and the appellate authority had passed orders to reinstate the first respondents in service with directions to pay their back wages, by its order, dated 31. 2000. The said orders of the appellate authority, dated 31. 2000, had not been communicated to the petitioner Company. After the petitioner Company came to know about the said ex parte order, dated 31. 2000, passed by the appellate authority, steps had been taken on behalf of the petitioner Company to file the petitions to set aside the ex parte orders, along with the necessary petitions to condone the delay in filing such petitions. .6. It has been further stated that the second respondent, in its order, dated 12. 2000, passed by the appellate authority, steps had been taken on behalf of the petitioner Company to file the petitions to set aside the ex parte orders, along with the necessary petitions to condone the delay in filing such petitions. .6. It has been further stated that the second respondent, in its order, dated 12. 2001, had rejected the petitions filed on behalf of the petitioner Company, to set aside the ex parte orders, on the ground that the petitions were not filed in time and the reasons stated therein for the delay was not acceptable. The second respondent had passed the said orders without properly appreciating the merits of the case. Further, it has been alleged that the ex parte orders passed by the appellate authority, have been served, on 2. 2000, in the name of the employees. However, they have not been entered in the records of the petitioner Company as its employees. The second respondent had not considered the reasons stated by the petitioner Company for the delay in filing the set aside petitions. Sufficient opportunity was not given to the petitioner Company to contest the cases on merits, even though no serious objections have been raised by the first respondents in their counters filed in the petitions to set aside the ex parte orders. Since no opportunity was given to the petitioner Company to contest the cases on merits, it has caused severe hardship and serious loss to the petitioner Company. In such circumstances, the petitioner Company had filed the present writ petitions before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. No counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the first respondents. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Company had submitted that the impugned orders passed by the second respondent are contrary to law and the probabilities of the cases. The second respondent had not considered the facts and circumstances of the cases in its proper perspective. The petitioner Company ought to have been given a fair chance to contest the appeals on merits. Since the delay in filing the petitions to set aside the ex parte orders were due to certain valid reasons, the delay could have been condoned by the second respondent. The petitioner Company ought to have been given a fair chance to contest the appeals on merits. Since the delay in filing the petitions to set aside the ex parte orders were due to certain valid reasons, the delay could have been condoned by the second respondent. Therefore, the impugned orders of the second respondent, refusing to set aside the ex parte orders passed against the petitioner Company, are arbitrary, illegal and liable to be set aside. 9. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent employees had submitted that proper reasons have not been stated on behalf of the petitioner Company to set aside the ex parte orders passed by the second respondent, on 31. 2000. In spite of sufficient opportunity having been given to the petitioner Company to contest the appeals, the Management of the petitioner Company have not availed the opportunities. The mismanagement and the consequential financial losses said to have been suffered by the petitioner Company, cannot be stated as good reasons for not representing its cases, effectively, before the second respondent. Further, certain rights had accrued to the first respondent employees, in view of the orders passed by the second respondent, on 31. 2000. No acceptable reasons have been shown by the petitioner Company to set aside the said orders. The reasons for the delay in filing the petitions to set aside the ex parte orders of the second respondent, dated 31. 2000, had not been properly explained by the petitioner Company. 10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner Company has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the orders of the second respondent, dated 12. 2001. 11. It is seen that the petitioner Company had not conducted the appeals before the second respondent in spite of the several opportunities having been given to the petitioner Company to put forth its case. Further, the petitions filed by the petitioner Company, to set aside the ex parte orders passed by the second respondent, on 31. 2000, reinstating the first respondent employees in service, have been filed beyond the time limits prescribed for filing such petitions. Further, the petitions filed by the petitioner Company, to set aside the ex parte orders passed by the second respondent, on 31. 2000, reinstating the first respondent employees in service, have been filed beyond the time limits prescribed for filing such petitions. The petitioner Company has not shown proper reasons for the delay in filing the petitions to set aside the ex parte orders of the second respondent, dated 31. 2000. The mismanagement of the affairs of the petitioner Company and the consequential financial losses suffered by it cannot be shown as a sufficient cause for the second respondent to condone the delay in filing the petitions to set aside its ex parte orders. No material evidence had been placed before the second respondent to substantiate the claims of the petitioner Company that it was being mismanaged and that there was a serious financial loss due to such mismanagement. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the orders passed by the second respondent, rejecting the petitions filed on behalf of the petitioner Company, to condone the delay in filing the petitions and to set aside the ex parte orders of the second respondent, dated 31. 2000, are arbitrary and illegal. Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.