( 1 ) A liberal construction is placed on the expression sufficient cause in order to do justice - substantial justice-to the victim of injustice. It does not mean that an over-indulgent view should be taken in order to help a public body save Rs. 3500/- (which in any case it will spend on litigation) even when with its vast organisation and army of officials it is guilty of unpardonable negligence and of offering untenable excuses and pretexts in order to harass one of its poor employees. That is the moral of what follows. It is seldom that this Court would interfere in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with an order setting aside an order passed ex-parte if the competent Court comes to the conclusion that there was good ground for doing so. This is one of those rare cases where the impugned order at annexure G passed by the Presiding Officer of the First Labour Court Ahmedabad in Misc. Application No. 58 of 1980 in Recovery Application No. 1209 of 1979 setting aside an ex-parte order passed against the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad earlier must be quashed and set aside as being perverse and also on the ground that it discloses total lack of application of mind on the part of the competent authority.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is an employee who was discharged from service and was made to maintain himself on subsistance allowance for seven years from 1964 to 1971. Ultimately the order was held to be void by the competent autority and he was directed to be reinstated Having suffered so much he made an application to the Corporation for leave benefits upon his reinstatement. Again the Municipal Corporation did not accede to the request and the employee concerned was driven to make a recovery application under section 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act being Recovery Application No. 1209/79 When that application came up for hearing the Municipal Corporation refused to file a written statement even though it was directed to do so and sufficient time was given to do so. Thereafter the matter came to be adjourned on eight occasions. No one on behalf of the Municipal Corporation remained present even once. Ultimately the matter came up for hearing on May 6 1980 On that day also none of the officers of the Municipal Corporation considered it their duty to remain present. These are facts which are not in dispute for they are culled out from the order passed by the Labour Court as per annexure D. For the sake of preciseness and for the sake of record as also in order to illustrate in what fashion the officers of the Municipal Corporation have conducted themselves in these proceedings we deem it proper to quote the relevant passages from the judgment and order of the Labour Court as per Annexure D :-

( 3 ) THE application was filed by the applicant on 31 August 1979 and thereafter usual notices were issued to the opponents which were served upon on them in view that the opponents were directed to file written statement before the Court within the prescribed period. It appears from the Rojname of the case that the opponents were directed to file written statement on or before 30th October 1979 but no written statement was filed on the said. Thereafter the application came up before me for hearing on 2nd January 1980. On this date also the opponents were absent and not only that they did not file any written statement before the Court. Still however sufficient opportunity was given to the opponents Nos. 1 and 2 to appear before the Court and to contest the application but they did not do so. The Recovery Application thereafter was adjourned on 22nd January 1980 13 February 1980 28 March 1980 and 15th April 1980 but throughout all these dates the opponents remained absent without any just and reasonable ground Neither the opponents no. 1 and 2 nor their Labour Officer Shri G. M. Shah cared to appear before the Court. Thus none appeared on behalf of the opponent till the date of final disposal o