Judgment :- M.CHOCKALINGAM, J. Challenge is made to the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court made in W.P.No.12422 of 2006 whereby the writ petition seeking to issue a Writ of Certiariori was dismissed. 2. The Court heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The grounds of appeal, the order under challenge and all the materials are looked into. 3. The short facts which led the appellant to file the writ petition can be stated thus: (a) The second respondent in the writ appeal was employed in the writ petitioner/appellant Co-operative Societies. On the ground of mis-appropriation, he was dismissed from service on 22. 2003. Challenging the same, he filed I.D.No.113/2003 on the file of the Labour Court, Salem. The exparte order came to be passed on 25. 2003 stating that the termination of service was not justifiable and the respondent therein /appellant herein was directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, backwages and other benefits along with costs. Application to set aside the order of exparte dated 25. 2003 was filed along with the application to condone the delay before the Labour Court, Salem. On the strength of the award, the second respondent filed Claim Petition in C.P.No.3/2004 claiming salary for the period from 3. 2003 to 30.11.2003. The same was also allowed on 211. 2004. The writ petitioner/management was under the impression that the petition to set aside the exparte decree was pending, in fact, it was a mistake on the part of the counsel and the management was in darkness. Under such circumstances, there arose necessity to seek the relief to set aside the order passed in C.P.No.3/2004 by way of writ petition. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the contention put forth was of the opinion that it was not a fit case where it could be granted, hence, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal at the instant of the appellant. 4. Advancing the argument on behalf of the appellant, learned counsel would submit that it was the case of huge misappropriation from the Milk Society which is situated in a small place and actually it was the money of the public which was put into the Milk Producers Co-operative Societies. It is true that there was an exparte award passed on 25. It is true that there was an exparte award passed on 25. 2003 but to set aside the award, an application was filed along with the application to condone the delay. While the same was pending, the second respondent also filed C.P.No.3/2003 for computation. The same was ordered on 211. 2004 directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1,13,000/-together with interest at the rate of 9% along with costs. The learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the fact of misappropriation of huge amount or the pendency of the application to set aside the exparte award of re-instatement along with the application to condone the delay. Hence, the order of the learned Single Judge has got to be set aside. 5. There was no representation on the side of the respondents. 6. After looking into the available materials, the Court is of the opinion that there is no merits to interfere with the order of the learned single judge. In the instant case, it is not in controversy that the second respondent was employed in the Appellant Co-operative Society and there was charges of misappropriation framed against him. While it was found against him, he made Industries Disputes in I.D.No.113/2003. An exparte award has been passed on 25. 2003. Even after lapse of long time, no steps were taken to set aside the exparte award. It is true, the application was filed to set aside the exparte award after long lapse of 3 years along with the application to condone the delay and the affidavit filed in support of the application does not speak about, how many days delay. 7. The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court is to allow the application to condone the delay and to set aside the exparte award but no materials were placed either before the learned Single Judge or before this Court. Under such circumstances, the contention has got to be discountenanced. The appellant has not taken any steps to set aside the exparte award of reinstatement made on 25. 2003 and thereafter, while the second respondent herein has made an application for computation in C.P.No.3/2004, the appellant has filed the writ petition to set aside the original award, that too, only in the year 2006. 8. The appellant has not taken any steps to set aside the exparte award of reinstatement made on 25. 2003 and thereafter, while the second respondent herein has made an application for computation in C.P.No.3/2004, the appellant has filed the writ petition to set aside the original award, that too, only in the year 2006. 8. In appraisement of the entire facts and circumstances, the learned Single Judge was not inclined to entertain the writ petition and rightly too and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.