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. 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 t