JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 14.10.93 passed by the learned Industrial Disputes Tribunal and Labour Court, Bhilwara in industrial disputes case No. 113/92 and prays that the whole inquiry proceedings may be declared illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was in the employment of respondent No. 2 since January, 1980 on the post of Operator. It is alleged that on 16.9.89 he fell ill and proceeded on medical leave. The petitioner moved an application for granting him medical leave from 22.9.89 to 5.10.89 by registered post. The petitioner was informed by the respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 28.9.89 (Annexure 1) that his leave could not be sanctioned for want of medical certificate. The petitioner sent the medical certificate dated 5.10.89 in reply to Annexure 1. It is also alleged that he received a letter No. 6044 dated 23.9.89 (Annexure 3) informing him that he is absent without information from 10.9.89. Thereafter the petitioner sent his reply vide letter dated 27.9.89 (Annexure 4) stating that he has already sent an application for medical leave upto 5.10.89 and the leave may be granted. The petitioner has alleged that he went on duty on 6.10.89 but he was not allowed to enter into gate. The petitioner made an application dated 16.10.89 before the Deputy Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer but during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings the respondent No. 2 has illegally terminated the services of the petitioner on 26.12.89 without holding the proper and legal inquiry. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute against his illegal termination order and after failure of conciliation proceedings the industrial dispute was referred to the respondent No. 1. The learned Tribunal held vide order dated 14.10.93 (Annexure 6) that there is no illegality in the inquiry proceedings. Hence, the writ petition. 3. This writ petition has been filed on 22.11.93 and vide order dated 13.12.93 notice to show cause was issued. In pursuance of the notice Mr. C.P. Trivedi appeared on behalf of the respondents and filed reply.As agreed by the counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 4. Hence, the writ petition. 3. This writ petition has been filed on 22.11.93 and vide order dated 13.12.93 notice to show cause was issued. In pursuance of the notice Mr. C.P. Trivedi appeared on behalf of the respondents and filed reply.As agreed by the counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 4. The main contention of the petitioner is that the entire enquiry is vitiated since no Enquiry Officer was appointed by a separate order and in alternative it is contended that the Enquiry Officer did not give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. Mr. Trivedi, counsel for the non-petitioner raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition submitting that the impugned order is interlocutory order, so no writ petition lies and the same deserves to be dismissed. On merits he has contended that in the charge-sheet itself it has been specifically mentioned that Mr. G.L. Paliwal, will be the Enquiry Officer and the petitioner was fully aware of the fact of enquiry but despite giving full opportunity and notice he did not appear, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.So far as the first contention of the petitioner that no separate order of appointment of Enquiry Officer was passed is concerned, the learned Tribunal has found that though no separate order is available on record but it has been observed that by the charge-sheet No. 4310 dated 14.10.89 itself the petitioner was directed to appear before Shri G.L. Paliwal, Enquiry Officer, on 23.10.89 at 10.30 which is sufficient to hold that he was appointed as Enquiry Officer and the workman-petitioner cannot take any advantage out of it. In view of this, in my opinion the contention of the petitioner is not sustainable particularly when counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show what prejudice has been caused and further that any separate order is necessary. 7. As regards the contention that enquiry was conducted without any notice and without providing him full opportunity. The learned Tribunal has observed that the petitioner has not refuted the claim of the employer that initially he was served with a charge-sheet by the enquiry officer by registered post A/D but the workman refused to take and returned back. 7. As regards the contention that enquiry was conducted without any notice and without providing him full opportunity. The learned Tribunal has observed that the petitioner has not refuted the claim of the employer that initially he was served with a charge-sheet by the enquiry officer by registered post A/D but the workman refused to take and returned back. Further the Enquiry Officer sent several letters but the petitioner did not turn up. Thereupon the enquiry officer gave a last opportunity to the petitioner vide his notice dated 21.11.89 for attending the enquiry which was received by the petitioner on 23.11.89 but the petitioner did not turn up for attending the enquiry proceedings. Thereafter, the enquiry officer completed the enquiry and submitted his report. According to the respondents they issued notice to show cause by registered post but it returned back undelivered due to non- availability of the petitioner. The non-petitioner passed dismissal order and sent that to the petitioner by a registered post but that too returned back due to non-availability of the petitioner at his residence. As stated above, the petitioner did not file any rejoinder before the Tribunal. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that when all the letters were sent by the employer by registered post on correct address as per the settled legal position it is to be presumed that they have been served particularly when the petitioner did not produce any evidence to show that he refused to take notice nor filed rejoinder to this effect and it cannot be said that reasonable opportunity to defend the case was not given to the workman-petitioner. Under these circumstances of the finding of the Tribunal that ex parte proceedings taken by the employer were appropriate and the enquiry does not vitiate on this count appears to be just. That part of this point has not been raised in the writ petition specifically. 8. So far as the mention of date as 30.11.89 is concerned, the learned Judge has rightly come to the conclusion on the basis of record that the same has been written due to inadvertence and no prejudice has been shown by the counsel for the petitioner. 8. So far as the mention of date as 30.11.89 is concerned, the learned Judge has rightly come to the conclusion on the basis of record that the same has been written due to inadvertence and no prejudice has been shown by the counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Tribunal while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court vested under Article 226 of the Constitution and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.No other point was pressed before me. Accordingly, the writ petition has no force, so it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******