K.L. Manjunath, J.

The appellant is questioning the legality and the correctness of the order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.8987/2011 dated 23rd February, 2012.

2. The facts leading to this appeal are as hereunder: -

The appellant was working as a driver under the respondent Corporation. While discharging his duty as a driver in vehicle No. KA-17F-335 on 21-12-1999 near Kumbalgodu he caused a road accident resulting in death of a rider and pillion rider of a two wheeler on the spot. According to the respondent the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. He was also charge sheeted before the Magistrate Court which ended in acquittal. A domestic enquiry was also conducted. The appellant participated in the enquiry. The enquiry report was against the appellant and the Enquiry Officer gave his report stating that the charges levelled against the appellant are proved by the management. Thereafter the Corporation following the procedure by its order dated 26-2-2007 dismissed the appellant from the Corporation.

3. Aggrieved by the same, a dispute was raised before the Industrial Tribunal in KID No.78/2007. The reference came to be allowed on 11-10-2010 directing the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the workman into service with 60% back wages with continuity of service. Aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, Hubli, the respondent filed a writ petition. In the writ petition notice was ordered to the appellant, though it was served personally he did not appear before the Court and he also did not engage the services of an Advocate. Still the learned single Judge directed the respondent Counsel to serve the notice of the writ petition along with the copy of the writ petition since by that time pursuance to the interim order the appellant was reinstated into service. Even though the respondent served notice personally for the second time, the appellant did not engage the services of an Advocate. In the result, the learned single Judge having heard the parties to the writ petition allowed the writ petition holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant and that the order of the Labour Court was contrary to the evidence and the documents produced by the management. Accordingly, the order of the Labour Court was set aside by confirming the order of dismissal passed by the management. Challenging the legality and the correctness of the order passed by the learned single Judge the present appeal is filed.

4. Mr. K.B. Narayanswamy, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant relying upon the Judgment in the case of Lalbi Vs. Modinamma @ Modinbee & others reported in (2013 (1) KCCR 648): ILR 2012 Kar 4403 contends that the learned single Judge has committed an error in allowing the writ petition without issuing a fresh notice as required under Rule 13 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977. According to him, in the instant case, notice was issued to the appellant calling upon him to show cause as to why 'Rule nisi' should not be issued. Since the appellant had no objection for issuance of Rule nisi he did not engage the services of an Advocate and did not contest the case. He further contends that the learned single Judge was required to issue one more notice before disposing off the writ petition after issuance of Rule. Therefore he contends that the order of the learned single Judge has to be set aside only on this ground.

5. On the other hand, Smt. H.R. Renuka, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent contends to the contrary. She submits that in terms of Rule 13 no question of issuing a fresh notice would arise. The Form No.111-A is the notice issued in terms of Rule 13. It very clearly states that if the respondent fails to appear on the said date the Petition shall be dealt with, heard and decided in his absence. That the finding in the reported Judgment to the effect that the Petition will be heard and decided on merits i