A. M. SAPRE, J. ( 1 ) BY filing this writ under Article 227 of the constitution of India, the petitioner assails the appellate order passed by the Industrial Court, indore, M. P. in civil appeal No. 753 (M. P. I. R.)/2000 dated 3/04/2001, which in turn affirms the order of the Labour Court, passed in case No. 99 of 1993, dated 12/10/2000. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. ( 2 ) THE respondent was working with the petitioner company since 1991. He was removed from service by the petitioner essentially on the ground of his long absence i. e. from 18/06/1992. His name was struck down from the attendance register. ( 3 ) THIS led to filing of an application by the respondent under Section 31 (3) of M. P. I. R. Act before the Labour Court, challenging his removal from service. In substance the termination order was challenged on the ground that it was passed behind the back of the respondent without serving him any charge-sheet and without holding any inquiry. It was also complained that the termination order is in contravention of Section 25-F of the industrial Disputes Act, because if the petitioner wanted to terminate the respondent by way of retrenchment then, it was necessary for the petitioner to pay retrenchment compensation. It was also contended that respondent having completed more than six months of service, became entitled to all the protection available under the Labour Laws. ( 4 ) THE petitioner, while opposing the application alleged that the services of respondents were terminated because of his unsatisfactory work and long absence. It was alleged that on account of his long absence, his services were automatically stood terminated. A plea of limitation was also raised. ( 5 ) THE Labour Court held that misconduct alleged against respondent is not proved. It is a case of an illegal retrenchment. The application is within the limitation and accordingly, set aside the termination order by giving direction to reinstate the respondent. The petitioner filed an appeal and by impugned order dated April 3, 2001, the Industrial Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of labour Court. It is against this order, the petitioner is in writ under Article 227 of the constitution of India. ( 6 ) HEARD Ku. The petitioner filed an appeal and by impugned order dated April 3, 2001, the Industrial Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of labour Court. It is against this order, the petitioner is in writ under Article 227 of the constitution of India. ( 6 ) HEARD Ku. Rachna Zamindar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. H. Moyal, learned counsel for the respondent on the question of admission. ( 7 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record of the case, I find absolutely no merit in this writ, worth admission. Both, the Labour Court as also the Industrial Court concluded against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent that so called misconduct alleged by the petitioner against the respondent was not proved on the evidence brought on record. In my opinion, both, the Labour Court as also the Industrial court were perfectly justified by evaluating the evidence led by the parties and further right in their conclusion that no case of misconduct against the respondent is made out. This Court cannot again go into the question of evidence, its adequacy or inadequacy and equally its appraisal. It has already been done by Labour court and also by Industrial Court as an appellate Court. Once, it is found that no case for misconduct against the respondent is made out, the termination order becomes bad. It is an admitted fact that no retrenchment compensation was paid by the petitioner to the respondent and therefore, the termination also becomes bad for want of non-compliance of section 25-F. Though, once the petitioner (employer) takes a stand that termination was by way of punishment then, the question of retrenchment does not arise. It is for the employer to prove the misconduct and support the termination, which is based upon such misconduct. If, misconduct alleged is not proved, termination must go. In this case, this is what has happened. ( 8 ) IN a writ jurisdiction under Article 227 the appraisal of evidence laid by parties, which is essentially oral in nature, is not permissible. Even then I went through the orders passed by the two Courts below and found that there is absolutely no scope for interference. Since the termination order was held to be bad, the necessary consequence is that respondent is bound to be taken back in service followed by back wages. Even then I went through the orders passed by the two Courts below and found that there is absolutely no scope for interference. Since the termination order was held to be bad, the necessary consequence is that respondent is bound to be taken back in service followed by back wages. Both the Courts have awarded back wages because petitioner has failed to prove that respondent was gainfully employed somewhere else. ( 9 ) IN view of aforesaid discussion, the petition fails and is dismissed in limine. .