JUDGMENT : The civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 20.04.2009, passed in I.A.No.40 of 2008 in W.E.No.337 of 2005, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (The Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Trichy. 2. Seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the work place, it is found that the revision petitioner preferred W.C.No.337 of 2005 against the respondent and it is found that the said case ended in favour of the revision petitioner on 12.12.2007 and he had been found to be entitled to receive a sum of Rs.2,39,280/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the work place with interest as determined in the abovesaid matter. 3. Now, according to the respondent, the abovesaid order which has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is only an ex parte order and it is stated that though the respondent had been appeared before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour for hearing on earlier occasions, due to the communication gap and wrong noting of the hearing dates, was unable to appear before the said Authority subsequently and thereby, not aware of the hearing dates on the relevant dates and due to its non-appearance, the Authority had set it ex parte and passed the award in favour of the revision petitioner on 12.12.2007 and as according to the respondent – Company, it has a good case to defend and further, the revision petitioner is also not entitled to seek any compensation from it and thereby, prayed for to set aside the ex parte order by filing the application in I.A.No.40 of 2008. 4. 4. The abovesaid application has been resisted by the revision petitioner contending that though the case has been posted from 08.06.2007 for the evidence on the side of the respondent, inasmuch as the respondent had not evinced interest to adduce any evidence in support of its case, accordingly, the Authority below had considered the case on merits and was pleased to pass the award in favour of the revision petitioner, after full enquiry and therefore, it is contended that inasmuch as the order of the Authority below, dated 12.12.2007, is based on merit and not an ex parte order, the present application preferred by the respondent to set aside the revision petitioner's claim petition is not maintainable and the only remedy available to the respondent is to prefer an appeal against the said order and therefore, the application preferred by the respondent is liable to be dismissed. 5. The abovesaid application of the respondent is found to have been entertained by the Authority below on condition. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred. 6. The Authority below, by order dated 12.12.2007, has determined that the revision petitioner is entitled to receive the compensation of a sum of Rs. 2,39,280/- with interest as determined therein. On a perusal of the said order passed by the Authority below, it is seen that no where, it has been mentioned therein that the respondent had been set ex parte in the abovesaid proceedings and thereby, the order had come to be passed by the Authority concerned in favour of the revision petitioner. On the other hand, on a perusal of the said order, it is seen that despite several indulgences to enable the respondent to adduce evidence in support of its case, inasmuch as the respondent did not come forward to adduce any evidence, with reference to its defence, accordingly, the Authority below closed the evidence on 14.11.2007 and based on the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, determined the case in favour of the revision petitioner as abovestated. When the position being above, the case projected by the respondent that the order, dated 12.12.2007 passed by the Authority below is an ex parte order, as such, cannot be readily countenanced. When the position being above, the case projected by the respondent that the order, dated 12.12.2007 passed by the Authority below is an ex parte order, as such, cannot be readily countenanced. On the other hand, the abovesaid order, on perusal completely, is found to be passed on merits and inasmuch as the respondent, despite adequate opportunities, had not endeavoured to adduce any evidence in support of its case, closing the evidence, it is found that the Authority below had passed the said order. In such view of the matter, as rightly putforth by the revision petitioner, the order dated 12.12.2007, cannot be deemed to be an ex parte order and thereby, it is seen that on a wrong premise, the respondent is found to have preferred the application seeking to set aside the said order. As above noted, the revision petitioner also resisted the abovesaid application of the respondent by contending that the order, dated 12.12.2007, is not an ex parte order, but an order passed on merits and therefore, the application laid by the respondent is not maintainable in the eyes of law and the only remedy available to the respondent is to prefer the appeal with reference to the same. 7. Despite the position being above, the Authority below, while considering the abovesaid application preferred by the respondent, proceeded to dispose of the same as if the revision petitioner had accepted that the abovesaid order is an ex parte order and thereby, contended that the application should not be allowed. When the specific defence of the revision petitioner is that the said order is not an ex parte order, but an order passed on merits, the appreciation of the defence putforth by the revision petitioner by the Authority below itself is found to be erroneous and without any application of mind on the records concerned. 8. That apart, when according to the respondent, the only reason given by it is that it had noted the hearing dates wrongly and thereby, unable to attend the proceedings subsequently and thereby, set ex parte, when the said cause had been challenged wholly by the revision petitioner, despite the same, the respondent has not chosen to place any material with reference to the abovesaid cause pleaded by it before the Authority below. In such view of the matter, it does not stand to the reason as to on what basis, the Authority below has chosen to accept the case of the respondent and thereby, proceeded to dispose of the respondent's application. Therefore, even as regards the merits of the matter, as rightly putforth by the revision petitioner, when the alleged cause projected by the respondent for setting aside the order, dated 12.12.2007, is found to be not established in any manner, despite the challenge put to the same by the revision petitioner, it is seen that mechanically, without any application of mind, the Authority below seems to have entertained the application of the respondent, however, with a view to pacify the revision petitioner one way or the other, had disposed of the application on costs. But, as rightly putforth by the revision petitioner's counsel, when the very basis of the cause projected by the respondent having not been established in any manner, the Authority below should not have entertained the application even on condition and accordingly, it is found that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 9. Furthermore, the revision petitioner had come forward with the claim petition seeking for compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by him in the work place. In such view of the matter, the Authority below should not have entertained the application of the respondent one way or the other to set aside the award passed in favour of the revision petitioner on flimsy grounds. When the revision petitioner is deprived of his income and thereby, had come forward with the claim petition seeking for compensation for his livelihood, the Authority below should ensure that the order passed in favour of the respondent is not easily set at naught by the respondent on frivolous and unacceptable grounds and when it is found that despite the indulgence, the respondent had not shown any inclination to adduce evidence in support of its case, in such view of the matter, the Authority below is found to have committed a serious miscarriage of justice in entertaining the application of the respondent, without the respondent establishing the cause pleaded by it on costs. By way of the same, it is seen that the revision petitioner has been deprived of his livelihood and he has been forced to again re-agitate the issues involved in the matter once again and when it is found that the proceedings would take its own time in reaching its logical conclusion, to say that the revision petitioner should be left penniless till the respondent exhausts the remedies available to it with reference to its defence, in my considered opinion, the approach of the Authority below in entertaining the respondent's application, without any justifiable cause and furthermore, without the respondent substantiating the alleged cause, is totally erroneous and liable to be set aside. 10. For the reasons aforestated, the fair and decreetal orders, dated 20.04.2009, passed in I.A.No.40 of 2008 in W.C.No.337 of 2005, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (The Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Trichy, are set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.40 of 2008 preferred by the respondent is hereby dismissed. 11. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is allowed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.