ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Binod Singh, learned S.C. (L&C) appearing for the respondent no. 1. 2. This writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the Ex-Parte order dated 08.02.2007 passed in M.J. Case No. 11 of 2004, by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad by which consequent to the application preferred by the respondent no. 4 under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act an amount of Rs. 4,22,045/-has been directed to be paid to the respondent no. 4. The writ petitioner is also aggrieved by the issuance of letter No. 4321 dated 18.07.2007 by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad, whereby a direction has been given to the petitioner to make payment of the dues as directed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad. The petitioner further prays for quashing of the order dated 10.12.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad, by which the prayer of the respondent no. 4 of being impleaded as a party has been allowed. 3. At the outset, Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the counter affidavit preferred by the respondent no. 2 and has stated that in view of the averments made in paragraph 22 of the said affidavit the matter with respect to recovery of the amount has been clarified. 4. Mr. Binod Singh, learned S.C. (L&C) appearing for the respondent no. 1, has stated that since the respondent no. 2 is no more in existence and the assets having been taken over by the petitioner it is for the petitioner to make payment of the dues to the respondent no. 4. 5. This assertion has been denied by Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. The primary cause for the petitioner to approach this Court appears to be the notice dated 18.07.2007 issued by the Labour Superintendent, Dhanbad upon the petitioner with respect to payment of dues of Rs. 4,22,045/-to the respondent no. 4. The notice indicates that the same has been sent to the respondent no. 2 as well as the present petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 2 at paragraph 22 it has been averred as follows: “22. 4,22,045/-to the respondent no. 4. The notice indicates that the same has been sent to the respondent no. 2 as well as the present petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 2 at paragraph 22 it has been averred as follows: “22. That it is relevant to stated that the petitioner herein has not been issued notice for compliance of the award passed by the Labour Court on 8.2.2007 in M.J. Case No. 11/04. The award is certainly directed against the Respondent No. 3, the Management of Kusunda Refractory Pvt. Ltd. being the employer of the Respondent No. 4, Sri Shankar Biswas, the workman. The petitioner being a formal party, only in order to provide informant, copy of the notice has been sent and as such the award as challenged by the petitioner requires no interference by this Hon'ble Court. The petitioner herein has also no locus standi to question the validity of the award and as such the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed in limine with heavy cost.” 7. The tenor of the counter affidavit more specifically at paragraph 22 reveals therefore that the petitioner had been noticed being a formal party and the notice was principally directed against the respondent no. 3 for making payment of the dues to the respondent no. 4. 8. In view of the averments made in the counter affidavit which has basically clarified the notice dated 18.07.2007, I am not inclined to entertain this writ application, which accordingly stands disposed of.