JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - In these three writ petitions common questions of law arise as such we are disposing of these petitions by a common order. 2. The petitioner is a partnership firm which carries on business of manufacturing locks at Aligarh. Respondent Workman's services were terminated by the petitioner. The State of Uttar Pradesh by its order dated 19-12-1973 referred the dispute to the Labour Court (I) at Kanpur for adjudication under section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On receipt of the dispute the Labour Court (I), Kanpur, issued notices to the petitioner as well as to the respondent workman calling upon them to file their written statement before it. The notice was served on the petitioner as well as on the respondent workman but one of them appeared before the Labour Court to file written statement or to participate in the proceedings. The Labour Court in the absence of the parties, gave an award directing the employer to reinstate the workman with continuity of service with full wages for the period during which he remained out of service. Aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the award. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Labour Court committed patent error in granting relief to the workman even though the workman did not appear before the Labour Court or file written statement or produce evidence. The Labour Court committed manifest error of law in placing burden of proof on the employer to prove that the services of respondent workman were terminated in a proper and legal manner. We find merit in the petitioner's contention. The employer had terminated the services of respondent workman. Validity of the termination order was challenged by the workman by raising industrial dispute. The State Government at the instance of the workman referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court. It was thus incumbent for the workman to have appeared and substantiated his allegation that the termination was not valid or legal. The proceedings before the Industrial Court are judicial in nature even though the Indian Evidence Act does not apply to the proceedings but the principle underlying the said Act is applicable to the proceedings before the Industrial Court. In a Judicial proceeding if no evidence is produced the party challenging the validity of the order must fail. The proceedings before the Industrial Court are judicial in nature even though the Indian Evidence Act does not apply to the proceedings but the principle underlying the said Act is applicable to the proceedings before the Industrial Court. In a Judicial proceeding if no evidence is produced the party challenging the validity of the order must fail. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail. Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service it is imperative for nim to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief. 4. In the instant case in all the three cases the State Government had referred she dispute to the Labour Court at the instance of the aggrieved workman. Consequently, the burden lay on the workman to set out the grounds challenging the validity of the termination order and to prove that the termination order was illegal. The workman did not appear nor they produced evidence, with the result that there was no material before the Labour Court for recording a finding that the order of termination passed by the employer was unjustified or illegal. In the absence of any evidence, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to hold the order of termination illegal. 5. The Labour Court committed manifest error of law it, placing the burden of proof on the employer. As noted earlier, the dispute was referred at the instance of the workman. It was for him to produce evidence to demonstrate the illegality of the termination order. As no such evidence was produced the employer was under no legal duty to produce evidence. Since none of the two parties appeared before the Labour Court, the dispute raised by the workman must fail and the Labour Court could not have granted relief to the workman. As no such evidence was produced the employer was under no legal duty to produce evidence. Since none of the two parties appeared before the Labour Court, the dispute raised by the workman must fail and the Labour Court could not have granted relief to the workman. In our opinion the Labour Court acted in excess of its jurisdiction in giving the award in favour of the workman. The award given by the Labour Court is not sustainable in law. 6. In the result, we allow the petition and quash all the three awards given by the Labour Court (I) Kanpur, dated 27-41974, 23-8-1974 and 23-8-1974. Since none has appeared on behalf of the respondents, there will be no order as to costs.