ORDER : Mr. R. Suresh Kumar, J. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the first respondent pertaining to its order, dated 27.10.2010 in O. Mu. No. 3144/2010 and quash the same. 2. The short facts leading to filing of this Writ Petition is that a workmen compensation case was filed by the second respondent against the petitioner in W.C. No. 136 of 2007 on the file of the first respondent. The said W.C. No. 136 of 2007 was decided by the first respondent on 19.02.2008, after having set the petitioner herein ex-parte. Even though the petitioner had been set ex-parte and an ex-parte award by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation was passed, the same was given on merits. However, in order to set aside the said ex-parte award made in the said W.C. No. 136 of 2007, the petitioner had filed a petition on 11.05.2010 along with a condone delay application to condone the delay of 781 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte award. The said application filed to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as the petition filed under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C to set aside the ex-parte award had been rejected by the order impugned herein of the first respondent, dated 21.07.2010 wherein the first respondent has stated that since the ex-parte award was given only on merits, the petitioner can prefer a statutory appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act. Therefore, by virtue of the impugned order, the right of the petitioner to agitate the issue on merits by setting aside the ex-parte award has been defeated and therefore, he has come out with the present Writ Petition with the aforesaid prayer. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon Rule 41 of the Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924, which reads thus:- "41. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon Rule 41 of the Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924, which reads thus:- "41. Certainly provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to apply.- Save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act or these Rules the following provisions of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, namely, those contained in Order 5, Rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 30; Order IX; Order 13, Rules 3 to 10; Order 16, Rules 2 to 21; Order 17 and Order 23, Rules 1 and 2, shall apply to proceedings before Commissioners, insofar as they may be applicable thereto: Provided that- (a) for the purpose of facilitating the application of the said provisions the Commissioner may construe them with such alterations not affecting the substance as may be necessary or proper to adapt them to the matter before him; (b) the Commissioner may, for sufficient reasons, proceed otherwise than in accordance with the said provisions if he is satisfied that the interests of the parties will not thereby be prejudiced." 5. Since the very Rule made under the said Act has specifically provided for an application to be filed invoking the provision of 3.P.C to set aside the ex-parte order/award, when the same was filed before the first respondent, of course, along with the condone delay petition invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, both the said petitions ought to have been taken up for decision and decided on merits by the first respondent. Without entertaining the said petitions on merits, the first respondent through the impugned order has simply directed the petitioner herein to approach the appellate forum by invoking Section 30 of the Act is bad in law as the said order directly runs contrary to the said Rule 41 of the Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924 and therefore, interference of this Court is warranted. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing 'or the second respondent would contend that the award was passed in the year 2008 even before passing the said ex-parte award notices were given to the petitioner he who was the employer of the second respondent. After having receipt of the notice, none of the hearing before the first respondent the petitioner appeared and ultimately, order was passed making the petitioner he as ex-parte. After having receipt of the notice, none of the hearing before the first respondent the petitioner appeared and ultimately, order was passed making the petitioner he as ex-parte. Further, the said order, 19.02.2008 passed by the first respondents an order passed on merits. Therefore, if at the petitioner has got any grievance over I said award, the same could have been challenged as has been directed the petitioner by the first respondent in the impugned order by invoking Section 30 of the Act. Moreover, the learned counsel further states that even after passing the award, the petitioner did immediately approached the first respond by filing a petition to set aside the ex-parte award, instead, after two years had come out with a petition to set aside the award and even in the condone delay petition for filing the said application, which runs more than 740 days, no acceptable reason was furnished by the petitioner and therefore, even on merits, both the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as the petition to set aside the ex-parte order under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C had to be dismissed and therefore, no useful purpose would be served even in entertaining the same, after this lengthy point of time. Therefore, the learned counsel states that no interference is required in the impugned order. 7. This Court have considered the said rival submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties. 8. Whatever be the merit or otherwise of the case of both sides, admittedly the award dated 19.02.2008 was passed after having set the petitioner herein ex-parte and though it was claimed that the award was passed on merits in the eye of law, it is an ex-parte award, la order to meet this circumstance, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Rule 41 is there, under the Rules which can very enable the petitioner either to file a petition to set aside the ex-parte award (or to file the same along with the condone delay application if there is any delay is occurred. In this case, the petitioner had filed condone delay application as well as the petition to set aside the ex-parte award and if it is wanted to decide the same, the delay petition to condone the delay could have been taken up first and decided on merits and if once the condone delay petition is decided in favour of the petitioner, then again the first respondent could have decided the petition to set aside the ex-parte award also on merits. Instead of doing this, the first respondent has simply passed the impugned order, driving the petitioner to approach the appellate Court by invoking Section 30 of the Act which is beyond the scope of Rule 41 of the Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1923. When the quasi-judicial authorities have not acted upon the jurisdiction vested on them, certainly this Court can interfere with such kind of non-exercising of the power and this is one of such case where though such power has been vested in the first respondent under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C and in both count, since the first respondent had not acted upon, this Court is of the considered view that there is every justification to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, it is liable to be set aside and therefore, the same is set aside. 9. In view of the impugned order having been set aside, the matter is now remitted back to the first respondent to take up the said two applications filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the set aside petition as well as the petition to set aside the ex-parte award on file and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.