D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is an employer challenges the two orders of the Labour Court, Shahdol, passing an ex-parte award on 31-12-1984 (Anx. F) and order dated 31-1-1986 (Annexure-G), rejecting the application for setting aside the ex pane award. ( 2 ) THE facts undisputed art that respondent No. 3 was appointed on a fixed salary on the post of Junior Assistant by order passed on 11-6-1982- By subsequent order passed on 9-11-1982, his services were terminated as no longer required He was thereafter re-appointed by order passed on 18-5-1983- His services were again terminated by the impugned order passed on 12-8-1983 (Ann.-C) He, therefore, sought a reference of the Industrial disputed under Section 10 of the I. D. Act. The Labour court by the impugned award dated 31-12-1984 (Annexure-F) directed re-instateroent of respondent No. ?,. with full back wages. The Labour court held that the employer inspite of notice did not appear and justify the termination order. The terminaiion was therefore, held to be arbitrary and against principles of natura: justice. The petitioner employer then filed an application for setting asile ex-pane award. The reason shown for non-appearance was that one Vishwakarma, styling himself as authorised representative participated on be half of the employer before the Labour court, although he had no authority from the Marketing Federation to participate in the proceedings before the Labour Court. The Labour Court considered the above reason and held that even ignoring the fact of Appearance of Shri Vishwakarma, who was not authoried to represent the petitioner, there was no sufficient cause for non-appearance of the employer when it was duly served with notice sent by the Labour Court for contesting the case. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-employer initially made some effort to persuade this Court to remand the matter to the Labour Court with a direction to grant fresh opportunity to the employer to contest the case on merits. We, however, find no ground to remand the matter. It could not be disputed on behalf of the employer that a formal notice for appearance was duly issued by the Labour Court, which was served on the employer and yet no effective steps were taken to arrange appearance on behalf of the employer in the Labour Court. We, however, find no ground to remand the matter. It could not be disputed on behalf of the employer that a formal notice for appearance was duly issued by the Labour Court, which was served on the employer and yet no effective steps were taken to arrange appearance on behalf of the employer in the Labour Court. The Labour Court, therefore, committed no error in rejecting the application setting aside the ex-parte award. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the employer then assailed the ex-parte award stating that the respondent Mo. 3 was appointed on temporary basis and his services could be terminated by an order simpliciter. In our opinion, in the absence of any justification shown for passing the order of termination, the Labour Court committ. d no error in holding that the order of termination was arbitrary. The award of the Labour Court of re-instatement, therefore, deserves to be maintained, ( 5 ) ON the question of award of back wages, it may be stated here that after the termination of the employer was set aside, the respondent no. 3 has not yet been re-instated in service. The award of the Labour court has been stayed by this Court by order passed on 29-11-1986. No order under Section 17-B of the I. D. Act were passed in this case for payment of salary in lieu of re-instatement to the respondent workman. It is also not clear before us whether the petitioner was gainfully employed else where during the pendency of the petition in this Court and earlier between the period of passing of the order of his termination till the passing of the order of reinstatement by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has also not considered the evidence with regard to the claim of the workman for back wages. In the circumstances we thinks that investigation and enquiry into the matter of back wages becomes necessary. ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the petition succeeds partly. The award dated 31-12-1984 (Annexure-F) of the Labour directing re instatement of respondent in service, is hereby maintained. It is further directed that the Labour Court, after due notice to the parties, shall hold enquiry into the question of award of back wages. ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the petition succeeds partly. The award dated 31-12-1984 (Annexure-F) of the Labour directing re instatement of respondent in service, is hereby maintained. It is further directed that the Labour Court, after due notice to the parties, shall hold enquiry into the question of award of back wages. The Labour Court shall hold issue notices to the parties and fix the case for evidence only for the purpose of deciding the question of award of back wages from the date of the last order of termination (Annexure-C) dated 12-8-1983 till the date of passing of the award 31-12-1984 and for the subsequent period after the passing of the award till the date of actual re-instatemaent of respondent No. 3. In the circumstances we leave the parties to bear their own costs. The amount of security, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed. .