JUDGMENT K.L. Manjunath, J. The appellant is questioning the legality and the correctness of the order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.8987/2011 dated 23rd February, 2012. 2. The facts leading to this appeal are as hereunder: - The appellant was working as a driver under the respondent Corporation. While discharging his duty as a driver in vehicle No. KA-17F-335 on 21-12-1999 near Kumbalgodu he caused a road accident resulting in death of a rider and pillion rider of a two wheeler on the spot. According to the respondent the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. He was also charge sheeted before the Magistrate Court which ended in acquittal. A domestic enquiry was also conducted. The appellant participated in the enquiry. The enquiry report was against the appellant and the Enquiry Officer gave his report stating that the charges levelled against the appellant are proved by the management. Thereafter the Corporation following the procedure by its order dated 26-2-2007 dismissed the appellant from the Corporation. 3. Aggrieved by the same, a dispute was raised before the Industrial Tribunal in KID No.78/2007. The reference came to be allowed on 11-10-2010 directing the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the workman into service with 60% back wages with continuity of service. Aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, Hubli, the respondent filed a writ petition. In the writ petition notice was ordered to the appellant, though it was served personally he did not appear before the Court and he also did not engage the services of an Advocate. Still the learned single Judge directed the respondent Counsel to serve the notice of the writ petition along with the copy of the writ petition since by that time pursuance to the interim order the appellant was reinstated into service. Even though the respondent served notice personally for the second time, the appellant did not engage the services of an Advocate. In the result, the learned single Judge having heard the parties to the writ petition allowed the writ petition holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant and that the order of the Labour Court was contrary to the evidence and the documents produced by the management. Accordingly, the order of the Labour Court was set aside by confirming the order of dismissal passed by the management. Accordingly, the order of the Labour Court was set aside by confirming the order of dismissal passed by the management. Challenging the legality and the correctness of the order passed by the learned single Judge the present appeal is filed. 4. Mr. K.B. Narayanswamy, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant relying upon the Judgment in the case of Lalbi Vs. Modinamma @ Modinbee & others reported in ( 2013 (1) KCCR 648 ): ILR 2012 Kar 4403 contends that the learned single Judge has committed an error in allowing the writ petition without issuing a fresh notice as required under Rule 13 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977. According to him, in the instant case, notice was issued to the appellant calling upon him to show cause as to why 'Rule nisi' should not be issued. Since the appellant had no objection for issuance of Rule nisi he did not engage the services of an Advocate and did not contest the case. He further contends that the learned single Judge was required to issue one more notice before disposing off the writ petition after issuance of Rule. Therefore he contends that the order of the learned single Judge has to be set aside only on this ground. 5. On the other hand, Smt. H.R. Renuka, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent contends to the contrary. She submits that in terms of Rule 13 no question of issuing a fresh notice would arise. The Form No.111-A is the notice issued in terms of Rule 13. It very clearly states that if the respondent fails to appear on the said date the Petition shall be dealt with, heard and decided in his absence. That the finding in the reported Judgment to the effect that the Petition will be heard and decided on merits is with reference as to the issuance of rule nisi alone cannot be accepted. According to her even though notice has been issued as to why rule nisi should not be issued, the subsequent part of the of Form-III A of Notice has been totally misread by the Division Bench. According to her even though notice has been issued as to why rule nisi should not be issued, the subsequent part of the of Form-III A of Notice has been totally misread by the Division Bench. She further contends that when the notice itself states that the Petition would be heard and decided on merits and, to treat the same as if it would be heard and decided on merits only so far as issuance of rule nisi is concerned, is wholly misconceived and liable to be set aside. 6. We have secured the records in the instant Writ Petition No.8787/2011. We have also given our anxious consideration to the Judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Lalbi Vs. Modinamma @ Modinbee & others reported in ( 2013 (1) KCCR 648 ): ILR 2012 Kar 4403. The Format of Form III-A reads as hereunder: "FORM III-A IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Writ Petition No: /20 (Notice under Rule -13(a) proviso) Petitioner. (By Sri ..................) Respondents: To Respondent No: Whereas a Writ Petition filed by the above named petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as in the copy annexed hereunto, has been registered by this Court. Notice is hereby given to you to appear in this Court, in person or through an Advocate duly instructed or through some one authorized by law to act for you in this case, at 10-30 a.m., in the forenoon (strike of whichever is inapplicable). On the................ day of....................... 19/ within 10 days/5, days of the service of this notice to show cause why rule nisi should not be issued. You shall produce in Court, on the date of appearance all the records, orders and documents touching the matters in question which are in your custody or power. (The above portion to be struck off, if there is no direction by Court to call for records) If you fail so to appear on the said date or any subsequent date to which the matter may be posted as directed by the Court, without any further Notice, the petition will be dealt with, heard and decided on merits in your absence. Issued under my hand and seal of this Court, this...............day of................. 20 By order of the Court, Assistant Registrar. Issued under my hand and seal of this Court, this...............day of................. 20 By order of the Court, Assistant Registrar. INTERIM ORDER Pending issue of rule nisi in the aforesaid Writ Petition, it is hereby ordered by this Court on.........................(By Hon'ble Mr. Justice. ........................ that......................... Issued under my hand and seal of this Court this..............day of................. 20 By order of the Court, Assistant Registrar." In the instant case, notice was ordered by the learned single Judge to the appellant herein and the Registry has sent the notice to the appellant in Form No. III-A. On a perusal of Form No. III-A it is clear that if a party fails to appear on the date fixed for his appearance or any subsequent date to which the matter may be posted as directed by the Court, without any further notice, the matter can be dealt with, heard and decided on merits in the absence of a party. 7. The appellant's Counsel is unable to dispute that there was no necessity for the Court to issue a fresh notice as ruled by a co-ordinate Bench in Lalbi Vs. Modinamma @ Modinbee & others reported in ( 2013 (1) KCCR 648 ): ILR 2012 Kar 4403. This Court is consistently issuing notice in Form No. III-A wherein there is a clear indication that if the party fails to appear on the date mentioned in the notice the matter may be posted as directed by the Court for further consideration without any further notice and therefore there is no necessity for the Court to issue a fresh notice for the second time after issuance of Rule nisi. Format III-A clearly, envisages the Court to decide the matter on merits in the absence of a party failing to appear subsequent to receipt of the notice. But the fact remains that the Division Bench while considering the aforesaid case has not considered the purport and intent of Form-IIIA. Therefore we are of the opinion that the Judgment in Lalbi Vs. Modinamma @ Modinbee & others reported in ( 2013 (1) KCCR 648 ): ILR 2012 Kar 4403 has no application if a writ Court has issued notice to the respondent or to any party in Form No. III-A as per Rule 13 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977. Therefore we are of the opinion that the said Judgment shall be held as per incuriam. Therefore we are of the opinion that the said Judgment shall be held as per incuriam. We are also of the opinion that when once notice has been issued there is no necessity for the Court to issue a notice for the second time, before taking up or deciding the case on merits if a party has failed to appear pursuant to a notice issued In Form No. III-A. 8. The Rules of procedure are intended for the quicker dispensation of justice. They are intended to streamline the manner and procedure that the Court should follow. They cannot be interpreted to thwart a disposal. It is for this reason that the later part of Form narrates that if you fail to appear on the said date or any subsequent date the Petition will be dealt with, heard and decided on merits in your absence. The subsequent part of the notice narrates as follows: "If you fail so to appear on the said date or any subsequent date to which the matter may be posted as directed by the Court, without any further Notice, the petition will be dealt with, heard and decided on merits in your absence." Therefore the meaning is clear. That without any further notice the Petition may be heard, dealt with and decided on merits. The parties are very well aware of the same. The Rules of procedure are intended for their benefit also. Therefore to assign a restrictive meaning is inappropriate. The Rules of procedure should be read in order to assist the Court in the quicker dispensation of justice leading to a benefit to the parties. Form III-A has been understood by all, in the manner as indicated above. Millions of cases are disposed off on such an understanding. Therefore to reinterpret the Form contrary to its intention and contrary to the procedure that is being followed all these decades is inappropriate and uncalled for. Therefore we hold that the Judgment reported in Lalbi Vs. Modinamma @ Modinbee & others reported in ( 2013 (1) KCCR 648 ): ILR 2012 Kar 4403 is per incuriam. Therefore we hold that when a notice is issued in Form No. III-A, the Court is well within its jurisdiction to hear and dispose off the matter without any further notice. 9. Modinamma @ Modinbee & others reported in ( 2013 (1) KCCR 648 ): ILR 2012 Kar 4403 is per incuriam. Therefore we hold that when a notice is issued in Form No. III-A, the Court is well within its jurisdiction to hear and dispose off the matter without any further notice. 9. At this stage, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that pursuant to the order of the learned single Judge, the appellant has been dismissed from service and if he is reinstated into service the appellant is willing to forego the back-wages as ordered by the Labour Court subject to grant of continuity of service. 10. Considering the submissions of Mr. Narayanaswamy, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and considering the background of this case more particularly the length of service rendered by the appellant as a driver of the respondent Corporation we are of the view that the request of the learned Counsel for the appellant is most reasonable and proper. Accordingly we allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.8987/2011 dated 23rd February, 2012 and we also modify the order of the Labour Court in KID 78/07 dated 11-10-2010 by directing the respondent Corporation to reinstate the appellant into service within 3 weeks from today and the appellant is entitled for continuation of service as ordered by the Labour Court. However, it is made clear that the appellant is not entitled for back wages and he is entitled to claim salary if he has not been into service within 3 weeks from today as ordered.