Judgment Heard both sides. 2. The writ petitioner is a Co-operative Society. In the present writ petition, they are challenging the award made in I.D.No.253 of 2003 dated 27. 2004 passed by the 2nd respondent Labour Court, Vellore. .3. The Writ Petition itself came to be filed only after the 1st respondent moved this Court in W.P.No.5796/2005 seeking for a direction to dispose of his representation dated 12. 2004 regarding his reinstatement. In the representation, he had referred to the dispute raised by him and the consequential award passed by the Labour Court in his favour. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 22. 2005 with a direction to the 1st respondent to make a fresh representation upon which the writ petitioner was directed to pass appropriate orders. Thereafter, the petitioner seems to have filed a copy application before the 2nd respondent Labour Court in C.A.206/2005. After obtaining an award copy on 27. 2005, the present writ petition came to be filed. 4. The ground raised by the petitioner was that the 1st respondent do not come with the cadre strength and not covered by G.O.Ms.No.86, Co-operative Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 13. 2001 and the award is contrary to the dictum of the Division Bench made in 2003 (1) LLJ 284, Justin Vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The writ petition was admitted on 27. 2005. Pending the Writ Petition, by an order dated 27. 2005, this Court granted an interim stay on condition that the petitioner Society deposits the entire back wages within 6 weeks failing which the stay was directed to be vacated. A Vacate Stay Application was filed by the 1st respondent stating that the interim order was not obeyed. Therefore, the matter came up on 28. 2006. This Court noticing that the petitioner Society has not complied with the condition for interim stay, vacated the same. Subsequently, the 1st respondent filed an application for payment under 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Though notice was ordered to the Society, they have not filed any counter affidavit on this application. Thereafter, in the said application in W.P.M.P.No.17333/2006, this Court by order dated 110. 2009 directed the petitioner Society to pay the 1st respondent a monthly salary of Rs.3610/- starting from November, 2009 and the arrears of Rs.1,80,500/- to be paid within six weeks. Though notice was ordered to the Society, they have not filed any counter affidavit on this application. Thereafter, in the said application in W.P.M.P.No.17333/2006, this Court by order dated 110. 2009 directed the petitioner Society to pay the 1st respondent a monthly salary of Rs.3610/- starting from November, 2009 and the arrears of Rs.1,80,500/- to be paid within six weeks. It is now stated by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that his salary has not been paid so far. 5. Mr. M.S. Palanisamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the award passed by the Labour Court is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. He also placed reliance of the judgment of this Court in (2009) 4 MLJ 186 , Special Officer, Palayamkottai Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli-2 Rep. by its Managing Director, Kamalam v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tirunelveli and Another. .6. However a perusal of the award shows that the petitioner society remained ex-parte and the Labour Court on the basis of available materials passed an award in favour of the 1st respondent workman. In the award, the Labour Court also found that after sufficient notice to the petitioner society, even though the Society was also represented by a counsel, despite opportunities given to the petitioner Society, they have not filed a counter statement and they did not justify the non-employment of the 1st respondent. In the light of the same and in view of the 1st respondent examining himself as W.W.1 and marking two documents as W1 and W2, the award came to be passed. 7. The petitioner Society has not taken any steps to set aside the same and as per Rule 48(2) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1958 by which an ex-parte can be set aside if an application is filed within 15 days. Even though, the award is as early as on 27. 2004, the petitioner Society has not chosen to set aside the award. The only ground raised was that on 7. 2004, the counsel for the petitioner could not appear due to personal inconvenience. The statement cannot be believed. Because on 7. 2004 also, the counsel was not present. Having represented by a counsel, they could have very well filed an application to set aside the ex-parte award. Even otherwise, the exparte award came to be passed only on 27. 2004, the counsel for the petitioner could not appear due to personal inconvenience. The statement cannot be believed. Because on 7. 2004 also, the counsel was not present. Having represented by a counsel, they could have very well filed an application to set aside the ex-parte award. Even otherwise, the exparte award came to be passed only on 27. 2004 and there was no explanation as to why no application was filed for setting aside the same within the time. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court an order of the Division Bench in 1997-I-LLJ 923, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras vs. The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Madras and Another. In that case, the exparte award passed by the Labour Court was cryptic and no reason was assigned to set aside the termination. Therefore, this Court held that instead of moving the Labour Court, this Court has got power to set aside such an award as it is in conformity with the provisions of law. In para 6 of the order, the Division Bench held that there was no application of mind by the Presiding Officer. .9. In this view of the matter, the award was set aside. But, in the present case, the Labour Court recorded the evidence of the 1st respondent as W.W.1 and also held that the claim statement made by the workman was not denied by the petitioner society. The Labour Court had accepted the statement of the 1st respondent and the claim was found proved. The Labour Court specifically held that the workman is entitled for the relief claimed by him in his statement. Under Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Rules, it is only stated that while passing an exparte order, the Court will have to pass the order as if the other side was present. In the present case, there is no denial by the petitioner Society about the claim made by the workman. The Labour Court was conscious of its role under the provision of the I.D. Act and had recorded the evidence of the 1st respondent and thereafter, passed the ex-parte award. 10. The case reported in (2009) 4 MLJ 186 is also against the petitioner. In that case, immediately after the Award, the employer Special Officer, Palayamkottai Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Palayamkottai has filed a Writ Petition. 10. The case reported in (2009) 4 MLJ 186 is also against the petitioner. In that case, immediately after the Award, the employer Special Officer, Palayamkottai Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Palayamkottai has filed a Writ Petition. In the present case, there is no explanation forthcoming. While the petitioner has waited for more than one year for moving this Court rather than moving the Labour Court to set aside the ex-parte award, this Court is not inclined to accept the submission made by the petitioner Society that in view of the decision of this Court reported in (2009) 4 MLJ 186 cited supra, the award should be set aside. On the contrary, the petitioner society has failed to exercise its statutory right in terms of the I.D. Act. It cannot come forward to state that the award is misconceived. 11. It must also be stated that the petitioner though had approached this Court for relief had consistently failed to obey the interim directions passed by this Court. The petitioner society should not think that they will get relief through final orders, but at the same time will refuse to obey the interim Orders passed by this Court. 12. The Writ Petition lacks in merits and accordingly will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.