JUDGMENT : V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. The workman has come up with the above writ appeal, questioning the correctness of the order passed by the learned Judge, dismissing the writ petition arising out of the rejection of his application for setting aside an ex-parte award. 2. Heard Mr. S. Arunachalam, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. D. Sivaraman, learned Counsel for the second respondent Corporation. 3. The appellant herein was employed as a Conductor in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. He raised an Industrial Dispute, under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in I.D. No. 22 of 2006, relating to his non-employment. The Industrial Dispute was dismissed by the Labour Court, Trichirappalli, by an award dated 12.12.2008, for non-prosecution. 4. Thereafter the appellant filed an application for restoration of the Industrial Dispute, along with an application to condone the delay of 157 days in filing the restoration petition. The condone delay application in I.A. No. 494 of 2009 was allowed. However, the application to set aside the ex-parte award, in I.A. No. 188 of 2011 was dismissed by the Labour Court, on the ground that after the publication of the award, in the Gazette, the Labour Court becomes functus officio and that therefore the Labour Court does not have the power to set aside the ex-parte award. 5. Questioning the decision of the Labour Court, the appellant came up with a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.11627 of 2012. 6. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Judge on the short ground that proper documents were not filed by the learned Counsel for the appellant and that therefore there was virtually no assistance from the learned Counsel for the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Judge, the workman is on appeal. 7. There are two issues. The first is as to whether the Labour Court has the power to set aside an ex-parte award, after the publication of the award in the Gazette. In Sangham Tape Company v. Hans Raj reported in 2004-III-LLJ-1141, the Honourable Supreme Court held that the Industrial Court will have jurisdiction to set aside an ex-parte award, provided an application is filed before the expiry of 30 days from the publication thereof. This was in view of Section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 8. However, it is contended by Mr. This was in view of Section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 8. However, it is contended by Mr. S. Arunachalam, learned Counsel for the appellant that the Honourable Supreme Court was concerned in Sangham Tape Company v. Hans Raj reported in 2004-III-LLJ-1141 with a case which was governed by the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, where there is no provision. But insofar as the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned, there is a proviso to Rule 48(2) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. 9. Moreover, in Radhakrishna Mani Tripathi v. L.H. Patel reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 81, the Honourable Supreme Court made a reference to Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957, which was similar to the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 and held that the Labour Court would have the power to set aside the ex-parte award. The decision in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal reported in 1980 Supp SCC 420 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 309, which formed the basis for Sangham Tape Company case, was distinguished in Radhakrishna Mani Tripathi case. 10. Even if we discard the question as to whether the Labour Court would have jurisdiction to entertain an application beyond 30 days of publication of the award, the appellant has to succeed on yet another ground. The award passed by the Labour Court, dismissing the claim petition of the appellant for non-prosecution, is not actually an award in the eye of law. 11. The entire award passed by the Labour Court reads as follows: XX 12. Rule 48(1) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, mandates that if any party to the proceedings before the Labour Court fails to attend the proceedings, the Court or Tribunal may proceed as if the party has duly attended or had been represented. In other words, the Court ought to have gone into the merits of the case and passed an award. Therefore, the original award dated 12.12.2008 itself is not an award in the eye of law and de hors the first question, this was also liable to be set aside. 13. In view of the above, the writ appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Judge is set aside. The original award of the Labour Court is also set aside. 13. In view of the above, the writ appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Judge is set aside. The original award of the Labour Court is also set aside. The Labour Court is directed to take up the Industrial Dispute for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The Labour Court shall endeavour to dispose of the matter within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs.