Judgment S. S. Sudhalkar, J. 1. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the award, dated August 16, 1999 (copy Annexure P/5) vide in which respondent 2 was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages. Respondent No.2 was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages. Respondent No.2 was appointed as malicum-chowkidar on July 7, 1988 by the petitioner. His services were terminated on May 28, 1996. He issued demand notice and raised a dispute which was ultimately referred to the Labour Court who passed the impugned award. 2. The petitioner has contended that respondent No.2 remained absent wilfully from April 28, 1996 and, therefore, it was presumed that he left his service. The petitioner did not contest the claim before the Labour Court. A. R. Ram Parshad appeared for the petitioner in the Labour Court on February 13, 1998 and May 22, 1998. Thereafter no written statement was filed despite opportunity being granted and ultimately the Labour Court ordered the matter to be proceeded ex parte against the petitioner. The respondent has produced evidence and it was found by the Labour Court that his services were terminated as alleged by the petitioner. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that according to Clause 9-B of the Standing Orders of Haryana Tourism Corporation if a worker is absent for more than eight days, he should be deemed to have left the service voluntarily. Standing Order cannot be said to be a law and it is made for convenience of a party by the party itself. Moreover, there is no cogent reason for not contesting the claim before the Labour Court. The A. R. of the petitioner attended the Labour Court for two dates and thereafter did not attend the Labour Court. The petitioner must be having its law office or somebody looking towards the legal matters in the office and the A. R. is not the sole person who must be managing the legal affairs of the petitioner. It is not known as to who received the summons and handed over the case to the A. R. Petitioner cannot be said to be a small concern which cannot have staff to look after the legal matters. It is not known as to who received the summons and handed over the case to the A. R. Petitioner cannot be said to be a small concern which cannot have staff to look after the legal matters. The petitioner contends that during the pendency of the matter the A. R. was transferred but at the time of handing over the charge, he did not hand over the case file to the person who assumed the office in his place. There is no affidavit of the A. R. Ram Parshad or the person taking charge produced in this case. 4. We, therefore, do not find that the reason given by the petitioner for not contesting the award is proper. In view of the same, the award of the Labour Court does not deserve any interference. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.