Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was employed as a Salesman on daily wages by the second respondent Co-operative Society from 01.07.2000. He was placed under suspension on 13.09.2001. A charge memo dated 13.09.2001 was issued making certain allegations against the petitioner and thereafter, an enquiry was held and the petitioner was dismissed from service based on the enquiry report dated 24.04.2002. The conciliatory efforts of the petitioner through the conciliation machinery failed and he took up the matter before the first respondent Labour Court by filing an application under Section 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Industrial Dispute relating to non-employment of the petitioner was taken up on file by the first respondent Labour Court in I.D.No.31 of 2004. Whileso, the first respondent dismissed the Industrial Dispute for default on 11.06.2007. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the award made in I.D.No.31 of 2004 dated 11.06.2007 of the first respondent and has sought for remand of the Industrial Dispute to the first respondent for disposal on merits. 3. No counter affidavit is filed. The writ petition itself is taken up for disposal as the matter can be decided based on the records. 4. The impugned award dated 11.06.2007 is extracted hereunder: "This is an industrial dispute filed U/s.2A(2) of I.D. Act for reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages. 2.) Counsel for Petitioner reports no instructions. Petitioner is called absent. No representation for the petitioner. Hence, this petition is dismissed for default. No costs." 5. The impugned award was passed based on the report made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who appeared before the Labour Court that he had no instructions to appear. It is not known as to whether the learned counsel informed the petitioner that he would report no instructions. No such letter written by the learned counsel for the petitioner was produced before the Labour Court. 6. Furthermore, the petitioner filed an application under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in the form of a claim statement, which is the pleadings made by the petitioner. 7. As per Rule 48 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, the Labour Court is bound to proceed as if the petitioner had duly attended and the Labour Court should have rendered findings on merits based on the available material. 7. As per Rule 48 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, the Labour Court is bound to proceed as if the petitioner had duly attended and the Labour Court should have rendered findings on merits based on the available material. Rule 48 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules is extracted hereunder: "48. Ex-parte proceedings.- (1) If, without showing sufficient cause any party to proceedings before a Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator fails to attend or to be represented, the Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator may proceed as if the party had duly attended or had been represented." 8. In case of reference by Government also, Rule 34(10) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules provides that the Labour Court shall decide the matter on merits. Rule 34 (10) is extracted in this regard: "34. Proceeding before the Labour Court or Tribunal.-(10) In case, any party defaults or fails to appear at any stage, the Labour Court or Tribunal as the case may be, may proceed ex-parte and decide the reference application in the absence of the defaulting party." 9. Furthermore, a Division Bench of this Court in 1999 L.L.J. 109 reported in Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras Vs. The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Madras & Anr. and this Court in Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Minerals, Ltd., Chennai and (1) Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Chennai and two others reported in 2000 (3) L.L.N. 1025 have categorically held that the Labour Court is duty bound to give reasons in the ex-parte order. Admittedly, no reason is given in the impugned award. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to quash the award. The matter shall be remanded back to the first respondent to decide the issue on merits. 10. However, the impugned award was passed on 11.06.2007 and the petitioner did not choose to file an application before the first respondent to restore the Industrial Dispute that was dismissed for default. Furthermore, he has not chosen to come to this Court at the earliest point of time. The award is dated 11.06.2007 and he has filed this writ petition on 15.05.2012. Hence, the petitioner, in the event of succeeding before the Labour Court on remand, is not entitled to backwages for the period from 11.06.2007 to 15.05.2012. 11. Furthermore, he has not chosen to come to this Court at the earliest point of time. The award is dated 11.06.2007 and he has filed this writ petition on 15.05.2012. Hence, the petitioner, in the event of succeeding before the Labour Court on remand, is not entitled to backwages for the period from 11.06.2007 to 15.05.2012. 11. In the result, the impugned award is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent to decide the Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.31 of 2004 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that in the event of the Labour Court granting backwages, the petitioner would not be entitled for backwages for the period from 11.06.2007 to 15.05.2012. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.