Judgment K.M. Thaker, J.—Present, petitions have been filed against the order dated 29.9.2008 passed by Labour Court, Dahod in Recovery Application No. 332 of 2008 (Old Recovery Application No. 45/06) whereby the Labour Court, has allowed the recovery application and reconfirmed the orders passed earlier in Recovery Applications No. 2/02 to 14/02 and has further directed to issue recovery certificate. By the said order the Labour Court has also allowed cost of Rs. 3,000/- in favour of workmen. 2. The facts leading to the presentation of this petition are that about 13 persons filed Recovery Applications in the Labour Court being Recovery Applications No. 2/02 to 14/02. The said Recovery Applications came to be allowed by order dated 16.08.2004. On the ground that the said order dated 16.08.2004 was passed without affording sufficient opportunity to the present petitioner, Misc. Application under Rule 26-A of Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966, being MCA Nos. 11/05 to 24/05 came to be filed with a request that the original proceedings of Recovery Applications No. 2/02 to 14/02 may be restored and opportunity of defence may be allowed and the said Recovery Applications may be heard and decided on merits. 3. After considering the submissions of present petitioners and the opponent, the said Misc. Application came to be allowed by order dated 6.2.2006 on the condition that cost of Rs. 3,500/- should be paid to each of the workmen. 4. From the record of the petition, the events subsequent to the order dated 6.2.2006 are not clear inasmuch as by the said order dated 6.2.2006 the Labour Court allowed Misc. Application and restored the proceedings of Recovery Applications No. 2/02 to 14/02, however what happened subsequently i.e. after restoration of Recovery Application No. 2/02 to 14/02 is not clear from the record of the petition. It, however, transpires that Recovery Application No. 332/08 came to be registered by Labour Court, Dahod (which bear Recovery Application No. 45/06 as old number) in which the Labour Court passed the impugned order dated 29.09.2008. From the perusal of the order dated 29.09.2008, it appears that through a union some applicants, who had filed the aforesaid Recovery Applications, claimed payment of Rs. 1,06,250/- on the basis of original orders passed in Recovery Applications No. 2/02 to 14/02. From the perusal of the order dated 29.09.2008, it appears that through a union some applicants, who had filed the aforesaid Recovery Applications, claimed payment of Rs. 1,06,250/- on the basis of original orders passed in Recovery Applications No. 2/02 to 14/02. The Labour Court has, by the impugned order dated 29.09.2008, directed that the petitioner must make the payments to the concerned persons on the basis of the orders passed in Recovery Applications No. 2/02 to 14/02. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Though the notice issued by the Court has been served on the respondent, nobody has entered appearance. With a view to affording opportunity to the respondents, the proceedings of the petition being SCA No. 15772 of 2008 were adjourned from time to time, however, since no one appeared, order dated 17.04.2009 admitting the said petition and issuing notice of rule was passed. It has been declared by affidavit of petitioner, that the notice of rule was directly served. Despite the service of notice of rule no one has appeared on behalf of respondent. Hence these petitions are heard and decided in absence of respondents. 6. It emerges from the record that the principal contention of the petitioner against the subject recovery applications has been that the concerned persons were never in employment of the petitioner and they had, in past never worked with the petitioner. It is also the claim of the petitioner that the said Recovery Applications came to be filed on absolutely incorrect and concocted allegations including the allegation about the employment with the petitioner. In support of its said contention, the petitioner has referred to and relied upon certain affidavits said to have been filed by Keshavbhai Valambhai Parmar, Ratna Dita Chauhan, Dalsingbhai Badubhai Parmar who, as per the petitioner’s claim, are from amongst the concerned persons i.e. amongst the 13 applicants. The said three persons, by their affidavits, have declared that they have not worked with the petitioner during the period from 12.12.1997 to 02.09.2002 and they have never lodged any claim for any wages for the said period. The said three persons, by their affidavits, have declared that they have not worked with the petitioner during the period from 12.12.1997 to 02.09.2002 and they have never lodged any claim for any wages for the said period. On the basis of the said affidavits, the petitioner has claimed that not only the three applications which were preferred in the name of said three persons but all recovery applications were preferred on misrepresentation and concocted allegations, and that though the petitioner had engaged service of advocate, the proceedings of Recovery Application No. 2/02 could not be effectively defended and the ex-parte order came to be passed though appearance of advocate on behalf of petitioner was on record. In view of the ex-parte order, Misc. Applications were preferred which came to be allowed, however, subsequently, by overlooking the said order, the Labour Court passed the impugned order dated 29.09.2008 in Recovery Application No. 332/08 directing the petitioner to comply with the original order passed in Recovery Applications No. 2/02 to 14/02. 7. It has been submitted that the petitioner has already made the payment of Rs. 3,500/- to each of the concerned workmen and the obligation of payment of cost as ordered by the Labour Court in the order dated 06.02.2006 has been discharged and yet the impugned order dated 29.09.2008 came to be passed. 8. It appears that after the order dated 06.02.2006 was passed in the Misc. Application, the concerned persons filed the subsequent Recovery Application No. 332/08 through a union named Jaihind Kamdar Union wherein the Labour Court, taking note of absence of the petitioner in the proceedings of Application No. 332/08 after restoration of original proceedings, passed the order dated 29.09.2008. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that the order dated 06.02.2006 was passed by Labour Court at Godhra, where the recovery proceedings of original proceedings came to be restored. However, subsequently, the recovery proceedings came to be transferred to Labour Court at Dahod and on such transfer the petitioner could not keep track of those proceedings, due to lack of information and co-ordination, and petitioner’s office at Dahod could not attend the proceedings before the Labour Court, at Dahod (after transfer of the proceedings). However, subsequently, the recovery proceedings came to be transferred to Labour Court at Dahod and on such transfer the petitioner could not keep track of those proceedings, due to lack of information and co-ordination, and petitioner’s office at Dahod could not attend the proceedings before the Labour Court, at Dahod (after transfer of the proceedings). It is not clear from the record as to whether any other order after the order dated 06.02.2006 was passed again ex-parte allowing (after restoration) the Recovery Applications No. 2/02 to 14/02, or not. 10. In absence of any such order, the application No. 332/08 could not have been allowed and the order dated 29.09.2008 could not have been passed while the Recovery Applications No. 2/02 to 4/02 remained restored by order dated 06.02.2006 passed in MCA No. 11/05 to 24/05. Unfortunately, the order dated 29.09.2008 does not refer to any other order again allowing the recovery applications (No.2/02 to 14/02) i.e. any order other than the order dated 16.08.2004 and order dated 06.02.2006. In this view of the matter, the order dated 29.09.2008 is not maintainable and does not deserve to be sustained. Presuming for the sake of considering the maintainability of the order dated 29.09.2008 that any other order besides the aforesaid two orders might have been passed by the Labour Court, and in absence of the petitioner again the recovery proceedings might have been allowed, then also order dated 29.9.2008 deserves to be set aside, on appropriate condition, in view of the explanation given by the petitioner namely viz., that due to the transfer of proceedings of said recovery proceedings of Recovery Application No. 332/08 (Old No. 45/06) and for want of information to the petitioner’s office at Dahod, the proceedings could not be attended. There is another reason for which impugned order dated 29.09.2008 deserves to be interfered with viz. the petitioner’s contention that the concerned persons were never in its employment. The petitioner has relied upon three affidavits in support, of the said intention and the said affidavits have been made by 3 out of 13 concerned persons which prima facie provide some credibility to the said contention, though, of course, it would be subject, to the confirmation by the concerned workmen. Even for the said purpose the proceedings of recovery applications deserve to be restored and petitioner deserves to be afforded opportunity to defend the proceedings on merits. 11. Even for the said purpose the proceedings of recovery applications deserve to be restored and petitioner deserves to be afforded opportunity to defend the proceedings on merits. 11. Hence, overall consideration of the matter, the order dated 29.09.2008 calls for interference at the hands of this Court, and the same deserves to be set aside. However, such relief cannot be granted unconditionally. This Court has considered it appropriate to interfere with the said order also upon considering the fact that the public exchequer may not be saddled with undue liability. However, petitioner’s negligence and lethargy in not attending the proceedings cannot be condoned or countenanced without appropriate conditions and directions. It is true that the petitioner has, for its earlier lapse, paid cost of Rs. 3,500/- to each of the concerned workmen, however though the Labour Court, condoned the petitioner’s earlier lapse by its order dated 06.02.2006, the petitioner appears to have ignored the proceedings of 2006. Hence appropriate direction imposing cost is necessary. Under the circumstances, the following order is passed on the condition that the petitioner will pay Rs. l,000/- to each of the workmen, within period of three weeks from the receipt of this order, the order dated 29.09.2008 in Recovery Application No. 332/08 shall be set aside. The proceedings of Recovery Applications No. 2/02 to 14/02 shall stand restored and the petitioner will be afforded opportunity of hearing and defence in the said recovery applications by the Labour Court. For the said purpose appropriate notice of the next date of hearing shall be issued by the Labour Court and will be served to the petitioner as well as the concerned workmen and thereafter the Labour Court shall decide the said recovery applications, as expeditiously as possible, without entertaining the application/request for adjournment of any side, except for exceptional reasons and circumstances and will endeavour to complete the hearing and pass the order by 31.12.2009. 12. With the aforesaid clarifications and directions, the petitions are partly allowed. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Costs as aforesaid.