JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 14.09.2015 passed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara ('the Labour Court'), whereby the petitioner's application seeking setting aside of ex-parte award has been rejected. 2. On dispute raised by the respondent-Kan Singh, the same was referred to the Labour Court by the appropriate Government. 3. The respondent filed this claim before the Labour Court to which, reply was filed by the petitioner, thereafter, on account of non-appearance of petitioner, the matter was set ex-parte, which was set aside on the next date. Again the matter was set ex-parte and on the next date the said order was set aside. Thereafter, again when no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner, the matter was ordered to proceed ex parte, where after the respondent filed his affidavit and for lack of cross-examination, the Labour Court passed ex-parte award on 20.12.2012. 4. Where after, the petitioner filed application under Section 22 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act'), seeking setting aside of the ex-parte award. 5. The application was resisted by the respondent, inter alia, questioning the bona-fides of the petitioner and the averments made in the application. The Labour Court by its order dated 14.9.2015, on coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has been negligent in prosecuting its defence before the Labour Court, came to the conclusion that it was not justified to accept the application and, consequently, dismissed the same. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court was not justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, inasmuch as, the petitioner had made out a case for bona-fide non-appearance on account of illness of the father of representative of the petitioner and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It was submitted that the conduct of the petitioner has been most negligent, inasmuch as, twice the matter was set ex-parte and was restored back thereafter, when the petitioner chose not to appear, the Labour Court was left with no alternative but to proceed ex-parte and apparently there is no reason for now seeking a restoration of the matter, which has been decided by the Labour Court on merits and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. While issuing notices in the present writ petition, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards cost before this Court. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner had deposited the said amount. By order dated 17.10.2016, it was directed that the cost be paid to the respondent No. 1 Kan Singh. It is stated that the amount is in the process of being disbursed to the respondent. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. From the perusal of the order passed by the Labour Court, it is apparent that the Labour Court on coming to the conclusion that the matter was set ex parte twice before finally passing the ex-parte award and on coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was most negligent in conduct of the proceedings before the Labour Court rejected the application seeking setting aside of ex-parte award. 11. The submission made before this Court seeking to justify the non-appearance of the petitioner on the date when the matter was finally set ex-parte, based on the illness of the father of the petitioner's representative, were not adverted to by the Labour Court, though in fact the same have not even been disputed before the Labour Court. 12. In the circumstances of the case, where for the non-appearance of the petitioner's representative on the date when the matter was set ex-parte there appears to be some reasonable cause, merely because in the past also the case was set ex-parte cannot be a reason not to adjudicate the reason indicated for the date when the matter was last set ex-parte. 13. 13. The fact that the proceedings are pending before the Labour Court since the year 2011, and the fact that the respondent was required to appear before this Court can be compensated by way of cost. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- has already been directed to be paid to the respondent and in the circumstances of the case if the petitioner pays a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent-Kan Singh within a period of three weeks, the petitioner would be permitted to contest the matter before the Labour Court. In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 14.9.2015 passed by the Labour Court is set aside and the ex-parte award dated 20.12.2012 is also set aside on petitioner making further payment of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent-Kan Singh within a period of three weeks. The parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 25.11.2016. The Labour Court shall proceed from the stage when the matter was set ex-parte against the petitioner. It is made clear that in case, the petitioner further makes default in appearing before the Labour Court, no further indulgence would be granted to the petitioner. The amount of Rs. 10,000/- as deposited by the petitioner under the orders of this Court would be paid to the respondent-Kan Singh as already ordered.