ORDER : 1. This is the petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner company registered under the Companies Act seeking following reliefs: “A. This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ order or direction, quashing and setting aside exparte award dated 07.01.2019 passed below Exhibit 46 in Reference (LCR) Case No.25/2016 by the Ld.Judge (C.D.), Labour Court No.2, Rajkot by way of which the application filed by the Respondent no.2 came to be allowed without hearing the petitioner, as well as the order dated 23.05.2019 passed below Exhibit 17 in I.D. (Misc.) Application 7/2019 in Reference (L.C.R.) Case No.25/2016 by the Judge (C.D.), Labour Court no.2, Rajkot, and the notice dated 08.07.2019 issued to the petitioner company by the Ld. Government Labour Officer, Rajkot; and thereby be pleased to reject the application of the respondent no.2. B. During the pendency, admission, and final hearing of the present petition, this Honourable Court may be pleased to stay the implementation operation and execution of the ex parte award dated 07.01.2019 passed below Exhibit 46 in Reference (L.C.R.) Case No.25/2016 by the Ld.Judge (C.D.), Labour Court No.2, Rajkot by way of which the application filed by the Respondent No.2 came to be allowed without hearing the petitioner, as well as the order dated 23.05.2019 passed below Exh.17 in I.D. (Misc.) Application 7/2019 in Reference (L.C.R.) Case No.25/2016 by the Judge (C.D.), Labour Court No.2, Rajkot and the notice dated 08.07.2019 issued to the petitioner company by the Ld.Government Labour Officer, Rajkot. C. This Honourable Court may grant such other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. The petitioner company is a legal entity and telecoms operator providing mobile telephony service in India, pursuant to the License granted by Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications, Government of India. After the merger of Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd with Idea Cellular Ltd. (as per the order of the NCLT, Mumbai and Ahmedabad bench), the name of Idea Cellular is changed to Vodafone Idea Limited with effect from 31.08.2018 and the said is also registered with the Registrar of Companies on 31.08.2018. 2.1 The Respondent No.2 was appointed in the petitioner company as Senior Executive in Level R2 on 05.12.2005 and was confirmed in service from 12.06.2006. 2.1 The Respondent No.2 was appointed in the petitioner company as Senior Executive in Level R2 on 05.12.2005 and was confirmed in service from 12.06.2006. He was also promoted to the post of Assistant Manager, Bharuch and was transferred to the Zonal Office, Rajkot during the month June, 2012. 2.2 A written complaint was filed by one lady employee in the year 2014 against the Respondent No.2 of his alleged misbehaviour at the time of training at Zonal office. There was also similar complaint preferred by Kanhai Marketing Collection Agency. The suspension came after he was called by the Circle office and inquiry was initiated. Services of his came to be terminated based on the report of the inquiry on 25.08.2014 and his dues have been settled by way of full and final settlement slip. 2.3 The Respondent No.2 gave a legal notice to the company on 18.10.2014. He also raised the dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and initiated the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“I.D. Act”, for short). The complaint was dismissed, however, Respondent had approached Labour Commissioner Rajkot and his case came to be referred to the Labour Court which culminated into Reference (L.C.R.) No.01.05.2016. 2.4 He also moved a criminal complaint for defamation under Sections 500 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code against four employees and petitioner company which has been dismissed by the learned 3rd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bharuch on 10.08.2016. 2.5 In the reference which was pending before the Labour Court, the petitioner had produced his written statement on 01.03.2018. On 16.03.2018 the Court passed an order permitting the petitioner to file the same after deposit of cost of Rs.1000/-. The cost could not be submitted and the documents have also not been exhibited. Learned advocate never intimated the company of the cost to be deposited. 2.6 Thereafter, the record and evidence have begun. The grievance on the part of the petitioner is to an effect that they were not permitted to crossexamine Respondent No.2 on factual aspects. After the evidence of the Respondent was over, the right of the petitioner to adduce the evidence had begun and the same was closed on 12.10.2018. The Respondent No.2 had produced his written argument and list of the judgment and the matter was heard ex parte. The petitioner asked for adjournment because of the personal difficulty of the advocate representing the petitioner. The Respondent No.2 had produced his written argument and list of the judgment and the matter was heard ex parte. The petitioner asked for adjournment because of the personal difficulty of the advocate representing the petitioner. The request was rejected and the Labour Court delivered the judgment and award in Reference (L.C.R.) Case No.25 of 2016. 2.7 The petitioner preferred an application under Section 26A of the I.D. Act dated 27.02.2019. The Respondent No.2 filed objection to the said application on 26.03.2019. The written statement was also submitted on 16.04.2019 and 22.04.2019 respectively and the Court rejected the application under Section 26A of the I.D. Act. The Labour Court also issued notice on 08.07.2019 asking the petitioner to show cause noncompliance of the award passed in LCR No.25 of 2016. So far as the request made by the petitioner to quash and set aside the ex parte award has been rejected on 23.05.2019 which is impugned in this petition. 3. This Court issued notice on 19.07.2019. Respondent No.2 – Ketanbhai Harishchandra Berawala ('the sole respondent') chose to remain present and also was desirous of representing his case. He has been explained possibility of legalaid to which he has denied and proceeded with the matter personally. 4. For and on behalf of the petitioner company, learned Senior Counsel Mr.Jal Unwala, appeared with learned advocate Ms.Tejal Vashi, learned advocate. According to Mr.Unwala, learned senior counsel, it appears that the learned advocate who had represented the petitioner has not intimated the petitioner company the correct details and there has been default on his part. He admitted that the company has not initiated any action against the lawyer concerned who was visiting the Labour Court from Ahmedabad. According to him, the petitioner could not initiate such action for the obvious reasons but there could not be the right of the petitioner to get the ex parte order and award set aside. He has also further submitted that the Court may award exemplary cost but looking to the seriousness of the matter the due also requires to be made available to the petitioner. He has also relied on Rule26A to urge that for any sufficient cause this Court is empowered to set aside the judgment and order. Before that he urged that application has been moved with the support of the affidavit and non-grant of the relief will seriously prejudice the right of the petitioner. He has also relied on Rule26A to urge that for any sufficient cause this Court is empowered to set aside the judgment and order. Before that he urged that application has been moved with the support of the affidavit and non-grant of the relief will seriously prejudice the right of the petitioner. He has urged that the petitioner seeks indulgence of the Court in wake of the poor conduct of the matter on the part of learned counsel representing the petitioner company. 5. The 'sole respondent' Ketanbhai Harischandra Berawala is present before the Court and he has also argued at length. According to him, the Court has given more than sufficient opportunity to the parties. At the time of filing written statement the cost was to be paid to the tune of Rs.1,000/-. The same has not been paid. He further urged that additional amount of Rs.10,000/- which has been directed to be paid rejecting the application has also not been so far paid. Despite on merit he has urged that he has good case and Court has appreciated that aspect and, therefore, there shall be no interference. He has drawn attention of this Court to chronology of events and urged that no further opportunity is desirable. 6. On hearing both the sides and considering material on record, this Court notices that details which have been given by the Court concerned clearly speak of number of opportunities given to the party. It also details as to how request of the petitioner has been acceded to by the Court concerned time and again. The Court also notices that the excuse given by the petitioner of the Advocate is only an excuse used to get example of the Court that opportunity has been given. There are no specific details made available to the Court. 7. Undoubtedly, the chronology which has been given by the labour Court is indicative of the fact that sufficient opportunities had been given to the learned counsel representing the petitioner company. If or for whatever reasons he did not appear or contest the matter, no notice has been issued nor any proceedings contemplated against the lawyer concerned by the petitioner company which has, in fact, approached this Court straight for quashing and setting aside the judgment and award. If or for whatever reasons he did not appear or contest the matter, no notice has been issued nor any proceedings contemplated against the lawyer concerned by the petitioner company which has, in fact, approached this Court straight for quashing and setting aside the judgment and award. According to the respondent, lawyer has been charging for his appearance on regular basis by raising bills to the company and those bills have been regularly paid. Before the labour Court, application has been made under Rule 26A of the I.D. Rules for quashing and setting aside ex parte award and report. Rule 26A of the I.D.Rules requires to be reproduced hereinbelow. “26A. Setting aside ex parte orders awards and Reports:- (1) On an application made within thirty days from the date of knowledge of an ex parte order, award or report by the party concerned, the Board, Labour Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator may, for sufficient cause; set aside after notice to the opposite party such order, award, or report as the case may be. (2) The Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or Arbitrator may on sufficient cause being shown, extend the period referred to in sub-rule (1): (3) An application under sub-rule,(1) shall be supported by an affidavit. 8. This Rule authorises the labour Court to quash and set aside the ex parte award on being satisfied with sufficiency of cause. Inaction or non-action on the part of the lawyer representing the party can furnish sufficient grounds, if evidence to that effect is adduced or otherwise, establishes on affidavit. 8.1 Learned senior advocate Mr.Unwala has admitted that the petitioner has not raised this issue against the lawyer before any forum but that non-action, according to him, on the part of the lawyer and non-initiation of any proceeding against the laywer, should not prejudice the petitioner company. 8.2 Accepting this version, the Court also is of the belief that such conduct of the advocate should not cause any prejudice to the party, more particularly, when it has periodically followed up in the matter, but at the same time, party also should not be shy of stating on paper, in black and white, if they are really aggrieved by the learned advocate who has chosen not to perform his duty nor bothered to intimate the party thereafter. Noticing that the respondent herein also is no longer in service and any further direction of consideration is also going to cause further delay while being satisfied that this is a fit case for quashing and setting aside the order below application under Section 26A of the I.D. Act, the Court also needs to strike a balance. So far as the private respondent is concerned in whose favour ex parte award has been passed, quashing and setting aside the judgment and award and permitting the parties to appear before the concerned Court without further delaying the entire process, shall also entail further expenses and thus, not only this would put a halt on his getting benefits, but, also for now, cause financial issues and hence, appropriate cost shall need to be awarded. 9. Resultantly, this petition is allowed quashing and setting aside the ex parte award dated 07.01.2019 passed in LCR 25 of 2016 by the Labour Court No.2, Rajkot and also the order dated 23.05.2019 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.7 of 2019 under Rule 26A of the I.D.Rules , with the following directions. 9.1 Reference (LCR) No.25 of 2016 shall be restored to the file. 9.2 The trial Court shall proceed from the stage where the right of the petitioner was closed, permitting adducing of the evidence on the part of the petitioner. 9.3 The petitioner shall furnish the details of the witnesses which it needs to examine well in advance within one week from the matter being listed, with the copy to the respondent herein to the fullest opportunities 9.4 The respondent shall be availed the opportunities of crossexamination who of course shall also cooperate in expediting the process. 9.5 Once the witnesses are examined, the parties shall proceed to argue or make their respective submissions. Written submissions, if either side is desirous to tender, the same shall be kept ready. Both the sides can be permitted to make oral submissions over and above written submissions as far as possible the entire process be completed not later than ten weeks. 9.6 The petitioner shall pay cost of Rs.11,000/- which has been directed by the Labour Court and also further cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent. Both the sides can be permitted to make oral submissions over and above written submissions as far as possible the entire process be completed not later than ten weeks. 9.6 The petitioner shall pay cost of Rs.11,000/- which has been directed by the Labour Court and also further cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent. 9.7 The Court has not expressed any opinion on merits, without being influenced by this disposal on order of cost, the trial Court shall decide the matter of parties on the strength of its own merits. The outcome of this petition shall not come in way of either side to decide the matter. Direct service is permitted.