Order : 1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner-Nigam has challenged the order dated 22.02.2021 so also 21.02.2024 passed by the Learned Labour Court, Bhilwara. 2. Precisely stated, the facts appertain are that the respondent who was working as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the office of the petitioner-Nigam was placed under suspension on the allegation of misconduct. 3. During the period of suspension, as alleged by the petitioner- Nigam, the respondent-workman willfully remained absent in order to avoid his arrest, as criminal case was registered against him. 4. As the petitioner did not pay him the salary/subsistence allowance for the period of March to July 2018, the respondent filed an application under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1947’). 5. Mr. Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner-Nigam argued that factually the respondent did not turn up to attend his duties, as he was under a threat of arrest and since he did not attend office, the subsistence allowance was not paid. 6. In relation to the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court regarding respondent’s signature in the attendance register, learned counsel argued that he had fraudulently signed the attendance register in back-date though he did not attend the duties. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. It is to be noted that after the order dated 22.02.2021 was passed, the petitioner-Nigam had filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’) for setting aside ex- parte order, however the same was rejected by the learned Labour Court on 21.02.2024. 9. The application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC has been rejected essentially on the ground of delay. Maybe, the petitioner- Nigam had some bonafide reason for the delay in preferring an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC but if the order dated 22.02.2021 is taken into consideration, it is apparent that the respondent-workman had produced Exibit-P2 and Exibit-P3, (which has been placed by the petitioner-Nigam as Annexure-3 and Annexure-4 respectively). A perusal of these Exibits shows that the Assistant Engineer himself had accepted the fact that the attendance register bears signature of the respondent-workman for the period 28.03.2018 to 31.05.2018. 10. A perusal of these Exibits shows that the Assistant Engineer himself had accepted the fact that the attendance register bears signature of the respondent-workman for the period 28.03.2018 to 31.05.2018. 10. It may be a different matter that the signature is forged or made antedated but since the attendance register bears his signature; learned Labour Court has committed no error in passing the impugned order dated 22.02.2021, while directing the petitioner-Nigam to pay subsistence allowance to the respondent-workman for the aforementioned period. 11. Hence, even if application under Order IX Rule 13 was allowed and the petitioner-Nigam was heard, it would have made no difference in the face of Exibit-P2 and Exibit-P3 duly discussed and dealt with by the learned Labour Court. 12. Hence, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the fact recorded by the learned Labour Court. 13. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. 14. Stay application also stands dispose of, accordingly.