Judgment K.M. Thaker, J.—Rule. Mr. Upadyay, learned Advocate waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal today. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has brought under challenge order dated 24.3.2005 which was passed ex-parte in T Application No. 276 of 2002. The petitioner has also brought under challenge order dated 19.1.2007 passed by the Labour Court in Misc. Application No. 117 of 2005 whereby, the said Misc. Application, which was preferred with a prayer for setting aside the ex-parte order and restoration of the original proceedings, came to be rejected. An order dated 6.5.2008 passed by the Industrial Court in Appeal (IC) No. 31 of 2007 is also brought under challenge. 3. The facts giving rise to present petition are that the respondent herein was aggrieved by termination of his service w.e.f. 15.9.2001 by oral order and without following any procedure prescribed by law. The respondent claimed before the Labour Court that after his termination he had issued statutory notice under Section 42(4) on 10.1.2002 and since any response was not received, he filed T Application No. 276 of 2002 claiming reinstatement with consequential benefits. It appears that after the notice was issued by the Labour Court, nobody on behalf of the petitioner company remained present and the proceedings were not attended by the company. On 22.10.2003 oral evidence of respondent was recorded and there was no one on behalf of petitioner company to conduct cross examination. Hence, the stage of oral evidence was closed. Subsequently also, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the petitioner company and therefore, the Labour Court passed ex-parte order dated 24.3.2005 directing the petitioner company to reinstate present respondent with continuity of service and full back wages as well as all consequential benefits. 4. The petitioner claimed that subsequently it came to know about the ex-parte judgment and therefore, immediately after obtaining certified copy of the order, the petitioner company filed Misc. Application under Section 118(B) with a request that the proceedings of T. Application No. 276 of 2002 may be restored. The application was opposed by present respondent on diverse grounds including the ground that the application was barred by limination and the Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to condone the delay. Application under Section 118(B) with a request that the proceedings of T. Application No. 276 of 2002 may be restored. The application was opposed by present respondent on diverse grounds including the ground that the application was barred by limination and the Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to condone the delay. After considering the submissions of contesting parties, the Labour Court passed order dated 18.1.2007 in the above referred Misc. Application No. 117 of 2005 and rejected the said application. 5. Aggrieved by the said order dated 19.1.2007, the petitioner herein preferring appeal under Section 84 of the Act which was registered as Appeal (IC) No. 31 of 2007. After hearing the parties, the appeal court also rejected the appeal by order dated 6.5.2008. Hence, aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. Mr. D.G. Chauhan, learned Advocate has appeared for the petitioner company and Mr. Upadhyay, learned Advocate has appeared for the respondent. 7. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 8. Mr. Chauhan submitted that the petitioner company had immediately after receipt of notice from the Labour Court engaged service of an advocate to represent the company in proceedings before the Labour Court. He also submitted that the concerned officer of the petitioner company used to inquire, time and again, from the advocate about the proceedings before the Labour Court and he was being informed that they would be asked to remain present in the court at appropriate time. He submitted that, under the circumstances, the officers of the petitioner company remained under impression that the proceedings were being regularly attended, however, it was only after the respondent’s demand for reinstatement that the petitioner came to know about ex-parte order. Therefore, after obtaining certified copy, the petitioner company filed Misc. Application within period of 120 days from the date on which the certified copy of the ex-parte order was received. He submitted that if the limitation is considered from the date on which certified copy was received then, the application cannot be said to be time barred as it was filed within period of 120 days. Application within period of 120 days from the date on which the certified copy of the ex-parte order was received. He submitted that if the limitation is considered from the date on which certified copy was received then, the application cannot be said to be time barred as it was filed within period of 120 days. He submitted that alternatively, the explanation given by the petitioner company, which was supported by affidavit of advocate’s clerk who stated in the affidavit that he was instructed by the advocate to file Vakalatnama but he forgot to file the Vakalatnama and therefore the track of the matter was lost which can be said to be satisfactory and sufficient explanation as regards the delay and should have been treated as satisfactory and sufficient explanation by the court also. Mr. Chauhan submitted that even otherwise, the said ex-parte order is bad in law and unsustainable and amounts to arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction inasmuch as merely on oral evidence, not supported by any cogent documentary evidence or any coroborating evidence, the Labour Court has directed the petitioner company to reinstate the respondent and has also directed that the respondent should be granted benefit of continuity of service and full back wages. Mr. Chauhan submitted that there is no evidence available on record of the Court to justify the directions granting continuity of service and/or back wages. Mr. Chauhan submitted that, in any case, the direction granting full back wages should not have been passed so mechanically. 9. Mr. Upadhayay, on the other hand, submitted that it was on account of petitioner’s fault that the Labour Court passed ex-parte award and after remaining absent during the hearing, the petitioner now cannot make grievance against ex-parte order. Mr. Upadhayay submitted that the ex-parte order is result of the petitioner’s negligence. Mr. Upadhayay also submitted that after the ex-parte order was passed in T Application No. 276 of 2002, the respondent had informed the petitioner company and yet the petitioner company did not take any action immediately, and after expiry of the prescribed period of limitation, applied for certified copy and then filed the Misc. Application but much belatedly. He submitted that in light of such facts, the order rejecting Misc. Application but much belatedly. He submitted that in light of such facts, the order rejecting Misc. Application and/or order passed in Appeal rejecting the Appeal, cannot be said to be erroneous or arbitrary and in the circumstances of the case, the said orders are wholly justified and do not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. 10. On perusal of the ex-parte order, it emerges that the said order has been passed on the basis of oral evidence of the respondent workman asserting that he was a permanent employee and that his service was terminated orally without following any procedure prescribed by law. From the said ex-parte order, it does not emerge that the respondent had placed any independent cogent and corroborating evidence on record to substantiate his claim that he was illegally terminated and that since then he was not gainfully employed and/or he was not deriving any income after his termination. The Labour Court has believed the version of the respondent and without considering any of the relevant aspect, awarded 100% back wages. No reasons or justification for awarding full back wages has been recorded. In such circumstances, submissions of Mr. Chauhan that atleast on this ground, the impugned order is unsustainable and the matter deserves to be remanded sound justified. This Court, may not, however, remand the matter solely on such ground since the unjustified direction granting back wages can be interfered with, if circumstances and material on record so justify, by this Court at this stage without remanding the matter. However, the award grants direction for reinstatement and continuity of service also. Hence the request for remand. But when the petitioner company is intending to contest the reference on merits and also contest the respondent’s claim for reinstatement, it is necessary to examine as to whether the order rejecting Misc. Application is justified and sustainable or not and/or as to whether the petitioner’s request for one more opportunity to defend the case on merits should be considered and entertained or not. 11. It deserves to be mentioned, at the outset, that Mr. Chauhan has submitted that the petitioner company is ready and willing to reinstate the respondent during pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court, if the matter is restored and remanded with a view to affording opportunity to the petitioner company to defend the proceedings on merits. 11. It deserves to be mentioned, at the outset, that Mr. Chauhan has submitted that the petitioner company is ready and willing to reinstate the respondent during pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court, if the matter is restored and remanded with a view to affording opportunity to the petitioner company to defend the proceedings on merits. The respondent did not agree to accept the said proposal of the petitioner company and has preferred to oppose the petition on the ground that the Labour Court has rightly rejected the Misc. Application as it was time barred. 12. In view of this Court, in light of the facts of present case, more particularly, in light of the offer made by the petitioner company, it is not necessary to enter into examination of respondent’s contention that the Labour Court does not have authority, while acting under Section 118(B) of the Act, to condone the delay. This Court is of the view that if the petitioner’s offer is entertained and the proceedings are remanded, equity would be balanced and the interest of justice also would be served inasmuch as the respondent would be reinstated, of course subject to the final decision in the proceedings by the Labour Court, and would start earning his livelihood and he would not remain unemployed any more and on the other hand, the petitioner would get opportunity of defending its case on merits. In light of the affidavit made by advocate’s clerk, which does not appear to have been contested or disproved, it seems, prima facie, appropriate to accept the petitioner’s case that it had engaged service of advocate but due to some mistake on the part of the office of the advocate, the appearance was not entertained and proceedings remained unattended though the petitioner was vigilant. 13. In view of the judgment of this Court in the case between D.R. Industries Ltd. and Another vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2008 (3) GLH 662 this Court is inclined to condone delay, without entering into the controversy as to whether the trial court can do so under Section 118(B) or not. 14. Under the circumstances, on overall consideration of the matter, this Court is inclined to pass following order, which would subserve the interest of justice and balance the equity. (A) The petitioner will pay amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards costs to the respondent. 14. Under the circumstances, on overall consideration of the matter, this Court is inclined to pass following order, which would subserve the interest of justice and balance the equity. (A) The petitioner will pay amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards costs to the respondent. (B) The petitioner will also forthwith reinstate the respondent, of course without prejudice to its contentions and subject to the final outcome of T Application No. 276 of 2002, and engage him on the same post and on the same terms and conditions on which he was working prior to his termination. (C) Upon fulfillment of the aforesaid two conditions, the delay shall stand condoned and the proceedings shall stand remanded to the Labour Court and the T Application No. 276 of 2002 shall stand restored. (D) The Labour Court will issue fresh notice of hearing to both the sides and immediately after receipt of notice, the petitioner will file its written statement within 15 days thereafter without asking for any adjournment or any extension of time. During subsequent stage of proceedings, the petitioner will not ask for any undue adjournments and will cooperate for expeditious hearing of the T Application No. 276 of 2002 so as to ensure that the proceedings are concluded as early as possible and preferably within 9 months after the same are restored pursuant to this order. 15. With the aforesaid clarifications and directions, present petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Cost as aforesaid.