ORDER 1. This application is filed seeking review of order dated 15.2.2012 in W.P.No.1066/2012. For ready reference we quote the entire order, which reads thus :- “15.2.2012 Shri P.C.Chandak with Shri M.R.Siddiqui and Shri Uttam Maheshwari, counsel for petitioner. Shri Sanjay Verma, counsel for respondent. This petition is directed against an order dated 22.12.2011 passed by the Labour Court, Jabalpur in case no.5/2011/IDR/Miscellaneous, by which an application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., for setting aside an ex-parte award dated 5.4.2011 in case no.40/2010 I.D.Act was dismissed. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that though the petitioner herein was impleaded as respondent in the case by the respondent, but he was not the appointing authority. The person who was working as Bureau Chief, though engaged an Advocate, in the case, but subsequently was terminated from the job, so the case could not be defended in the Labour Court and was proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner. It is submitted that as per Annexure P-1 the appointing authority was the Deputy Managing Worker (Commercial) of Sahara India T.V. Network, but the respondent impleaded Bureau Chief who was not the appropriate authority. It is submitted that the ex-parte award deserves to be set aside on this ground and the matter may be remanded back to the Labour Court for a fresh decision. Shri Sanjay Verma, learned counsel for respondent submitted that the petitioner herein has not complied with section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for short) till date. The award was passed on 5.4.2011 and it was pronounced on 10.6.2011. The respondent is entitled for last wages drawn from the petitioner, which has not been paid by the petitioner till date. It is further submitted by the respondent that in spite of service of petitioner, petitioner had willfully remained absent before the Labour Court. The Labour Court rightly passed the award, in which there is no fault. In the alternative it is prayed that the petitioner be directed to deposit entire amount due under section 17B of the Act forthwith. To appreciate rival contentions of the parties, we have perused the record and find that as per Annexure P-1 the appropriate appointing authority was the Deputy Managing Worker (Commercial) of Sahara India T.V.Network. In the alternative it is prayed that the petitioner be directed to deposit entire amount due under section 17B of the Act forthwith. To appreciate rival contentions of the parties, we have perused the record and find that as per Annexure P-1 the appropriate appointing authority was the Deputy Managing Worker (Commercial) of Sahara India T.V.Network. This order Annexure P-1 was issued to the respondent on 6.5.2004 and the respondent was appointed on the post of Senior Officer (Assistant Cameraman) of Sahara India T.V.Network. The respondent was knowing it well that the Bureau Chief was not proper person and ought to have impleaded Deputy Managing Worker (Commercial), who could not be impleaded in the matter. However the petitioner herein was served and engaged a counsel. Thus it was the duty on the part of petitioner to intimate to the Labour Court, who was the appropriate authority, which could have been sued by the respondents, but it appears that the aforesaid information was not furnished before the Labour Court. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that though in the application under section 10 of the Act filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jabalpur and the statement of claim on behalf of workman filed before the Labour Court the appropriate authorities were impleaded, but no notice was issued to any of them, because the reference order was made against the petitioner herein only. At present we are not going to consider the aforesaid controversy, as it is not in dispute that only the Bureau Chief, petitioner herein was served in the matter. The person who at the relevant time was working as Bureau Chief was terminated and the case could not be contested on behalf of Sahara India T.V.Network. It appears that there was some negligence on the part of petitioner also. The petitioner who was duly served ought to have made appropriate arrangements for appearance before the Labour Court or to file appropriate objection before the Labour Court, so the Labour Court may not proceed against a wrong person. However, we find that the interest of justice will meet, if the aforesaid order is set aside, but on certain terms one opportunity is allowed to the petitioner to submit its case before the Labour Court. However, we find that the interest of justice will meet, if the aforesaid order is set aside, but on certain terms one opportunity is allowed to the petitioner to submit its case before the Labour Court. As per section 17B of the Act, the respondent is entitled for last wages drawn and as per letter Annexure P-5, we find that the respondent was getting Rs.22,270/- per month from M/s Sahara India T.V.Network. In the aforesaid circumstances, we dispose of this petition with following directions :- 1. The petitioner herein is directed to deposit Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) within a period of one month from today before the Labour Court. 2. On deposit of aforesaid amount, the respondent shall be entitled to withdraw it, which shall be treated as payment towards compliance of section 17-B of the Act. 3. If the aforesaid amount is deposited within the aforesaid period, the Labour Court shall restore the file of case no.40/2010/I.D.Act and shall proceed in the matter, in accordance with law. 4. For the convenience of the parties, we direct both the parties to appear before the Labour Court on 19th March, 2012, on which date the Labour Court shall ascertain compliance of direction no.1 and if the direction no.1 is complied with, then to proceed in the matter, but in case direction no.1 is not complied with, the Labour Court shall close the proceedings and the award dated 5.4.2011 shall be treated as final between the parties. Considering the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. C.C., as per rules.” 2. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that in the aforesaid order this Court had not directed in respect of payment of remaining amount towards compliance of section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for short) and for remaining amount the respondent may be directed to make payment of it to the petitioner or in the alternative petitioner/applicant herein may be permitted to recover the remaining amount from the respondent, in accordance with law. 3. Shri P.C.Chandak, learned counsel for respondent opposed the aforesaid contention and submitted that this Court in the aforesaid order has specifically directed for payment of Rs.60,000/- and the aforesaid payment was treated as payment towards compliance of section 17B of the Act. 3. Shri P.C.Chandak, learned counsel for respondent opposed the aforesaid contention and submitted that this Court in the aforesaid order has specifically directed for payment of Rs.60,000/- and the aforesaid payment was treated as payment towards compliance of section 17B of the Act. It was further submitted by him that the respondent herein had filed writ petition before the High Court on 17.1.2012 against the award dated 5.4.2011 pronounced on 10.6.2011. The application for setting aside ex-parte award was dismissed on 22.12.2011. In the case the applicant herein had caused appearance on 6.2.2012 and the matter was decided on 15.2.2012 and during the pendency of the proceedings the payment was made as has been directed in direction no.2 by this Court. It was submitted that there is no need of review or clarification of the order dated 15.2.2012. 4. Shri Sanjay Verma, learned counsel for applicant has placed reliance to the judgment of Apex Court in Regional Authority, Dena Bank and another Vs. Ghanshyam ( AIR 2001 SC 2270 ) and a Single Bench judgment of this Court in The Project Director, District Literacy Samiti Tala House Vs. Ms.Mamta Shrivastava and another reported in [ 2011(2) M.P.L.J. 311 ] and submitted that the applicant herein was entitled for the payment of last wages drawn from the date of the award passed by the Labour Court till the termination of the proceedings before this Court, so the applicant was entitled for last wages drawn from 5.4.2011 or 10.6.2011. It was submitted that for the remaining amount the applicant may be permitted to recover it from the respondent. 5. From the perusal of the order dated 15.2.2012 and considering rival contentions, we find it appropriate to dispose of this petition with a direction for granting an opportunity to the respondent to contest the case on merits. It is also not in dispute that till 15.2.2012 the proceedings remained pending before this Court and under section 17B of the Act, the applicant herein was entitled for the last wages drawn in accordance with law. In direction no.1 & 2 (supra) we have directed payment of an amount of Rs.60,000/- to the applicant, but it was towards compliance of section 17B of the Act. We have not said that the payment of aforesaid amount shall be treated as full compliance of section 17B of the Act. In direction no.1 & 2 (supra) we have directed payment of an amount of Rs.60,000/- to the applicant, but it was towards compliance of section 17B of the Act. We have not said that the payment of aforesaid amount shall be treated as full compliance of section 17B of the Act. The petitioner if is entitled for some more amount may take recourse of law for recovery of the remaining amount. 6. With the aforesaid clarification, we close the proceedings, with no order as to costs.