ORDER : Rekha Borana, J. 1. The facts of the matter are as under: 2. The respondent-Workman Dal Chand filed a claim before the Labour Court, Bhilwara averring that he was employed with the petitioner-Company and his services were retrenched on 12.08.2010 without any notice to him. After issuance of notice by the Labour Court, the employer-Company put in appearance through its Director on 02.05.2011. Thereafter, an application was moved on behalf of the Company for permission to be represented through Advocate but the same was rejected and the Company was permitted to be represented through its representative only. The matter then proceeded further and an application on behalf of the claimant was filed with a prayer for direction to the Company for production of certain documents. The reply to that application was filed on behalf of the Company on 28.07.2011. On 28.07.2011, the matter was posted for claimant's evidence on 17.08.2011. On 17.08.2011, none was present on behalf of any of the parties neither any witness was present. Therefore, the matter was posted on 20.09.2011. On that date, two witnesses on behalf of claimant were present but none appeared on behalf of non-claimant-Company and therefore, the learned Labour Court ordered to proceed ex parte against the Company. On that date, affidavits of both the witnesses were taken on record and the matter was posted for final arguments on the next date i.e. 25.10.2011. On 25.10.2011, Counsel for the claimant sought time for arguments which was heard on the next date i.e. 01.11.2011 and on the very next day i.e. 02.11.2011 the impugned award was passed. Vide award dated 02.11.2011, the claim of the claimant was allowed and he was directed to be reinstated with 50% of the back wages. 3. On 17.10.2012, an application was preferred on behalf of the Company for setting aside the ex parte award and prayed for the matter to be heard on merits. The said application of the Company was rejected by the learned Labour Court vide order dated 05.05.2015 against which the present writ petition has been preferred. 4. Counsel for the petitioner argued that there was a valid ground on record that the Company was not aware of the proceedings pending before the learned Labour Court as the earlier representative of the Company had resigned. 4. Counsel for the petitioner argued that there was a valid ground on record that the Company was not aware of the proceedings pending before the learned Labour Court as the earlier representative of the Company had resigned. It was stated in the application that because of the resignation of the representative of the Company, the fact of pendency of the litigation before the Labour Court was not in the knowledge of the present representative of the Company and therefore, it was not adequately represented before the Court. In the circumstance, it was prayed that the ex parte award may be set aside. Counsel further argued that even otherwise on the date when the Court proceeded ex parte against the Company, an application moved on behalf of the claimant to which the reply had been filed by the Company remained pending and without deciding the same, the Court could not have proceeded with the final arguments and disposal of the matter. Counsel argued that the decision of the said application ought to have been made as the application was crucial for the decision of the matter on merits. 5. Per contra, counsel for the respondents submitted that the application for setting aside of ex parte proceedings was moved on behalf of the Company on 17.10.2012 i.e. more than one year of the passing of the award. Counsel argued that no valid ground has been raised on behalf of the Company for its non appearance before the Labour Court on the date when the ex parte order was passed and even on the further dates till the award was passed. 6. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is clear on record that no document pertaining to the resignation of the representative of the Company as alleged by the Company has been placed on record. Therefore, so far as the finding of the Labour Court that the representative of the Company was aware of the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court cannot be faulted with. But it is also clear on record that on 28.07.2011, a reply to the application as moved on behalf of the claimant was filed by the Company and therefore, the matter ought to have been posted for decision of the said application but without deciding the said application the matter was posted for evidence on the next date. But it is also clear on record that on 28.07.2011, a reply to the application as moved on behalf of the claimant was filed by the Company and therefore, the matter ought to have been posted for decision of the said application but without deciding the said application the matter was posted for evidence on the next date. Be that as it may. On the next date i.e. on 17.08.2011, no one was present on behalf of both the parties and even no witness on behalf of the claimant was present. On that day, the next date for evidence was fixed on 20.09.2011. On 20.09.2011, as no one was present on behalf of the Company, the Court ordered to proceed ex parte against the Company whereas on that date, the affidavits of the witnesses were taken on record. On that date, nothing substantial was to be done on behalf of the Company. If the Court had taken the affidavits of witnesses on record then the matter ought to have been proceeded for the cross examination of the witnesses on the next date. 8. It is also relevant to note that the application of the claimant remained pending even till the date of passing of the award and the same was never decided. Moresoever, it was the first date on which none was present on behalf of the Company only. In the interest of justice, an opportunity ought to have been granted and it was not proper on the part of the Court to proceed ex parte on that very date. It is the settled proposition of law that if a matter is posted for certain proceedings on certain date, the Court has to proceed qua those proceedings only on that date. On 20.09.2011, the matter was posted for claimant's evidence and the affidavits of two witnesses were taken on record on that date. Therefore, the matter ought to have been proceeded for cross examination of the witnesses after service of the copy of the affidavits on the opposite party. Then the Court ought to have proceeded if none appeared for the cross examination of the witness on the next date. The Court, in a hot haste, without granting any opportunity of cross examination to the employer, proceeded ex parte against the Company on the same date. Then the Court ought to have proceeded if none appeared for the cross examination of the witness on the next date. The Court, in a hot haste, without granting any opportunity of cross examination to the employer, proceeded ex parte against the Company on the same date. The said action of the learned Labour Court cannot be held to be rational and logical. The approach being in contravention to the settled proposition of law too, deserves not to be appreciated. 9. In view of the above observations, the application of the Company for setting aside of ex parte proceedings deserves to be and is hereby allowed at the cost of Rs.25,000/-. Consequently, the impugned order dated 20.09.2011 and subsequent award dated 02.11.2011 are hereby quashed and set aside. The Labour Court would now proceed afresh from the stage just prior to passing of the order dated 20.09.2011. Both the parties would remain present before the Labour Court on 21.03.2022 and no fresh notices would be required to be issued by the Labour Court. If any of the parties fail to appear before the Labour Court on 21.03.2022, the Court would be free to proceed ex parte against the said party. 10. The cost of Rs.25,000/- would be paid by the petitioner-Company to the respondent-workman on 21.03.2022 before the Labour Court. If the same is not paid on the said date, the present order would not be given effect to and the Labour Court may decline to proceed. 11. With the above directions, the present writ petition is disposed of.