ANJANI KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) BY means of present writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-employer challenges the award of the industrial Tribunal (4) U. P. , Agra dated 4/04/1997 passed in Adjudication Case No. 249 of 1996, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. ( 2 ) I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and have gone through the award. A perusal whereof demonstrates that the following was the reference made by the state Government to the Industrial Tribunal (4 ). U. P. , Agra, hereinafter referred to as the tribunal, for adjudication. (Vernacular matter omitted) ( 3 ) THE Tribunal has recorded a finding hat on receipt of the reference, a case was egistered and notices were sent to the parties by registered post. On the date fixed i. e. on anuary 24, 1997 the workman concerned has but in appearance and filed his authority longwith an application praying therein that he nay be granted time till next date fixed for fling the written statement. But on that date, lamely, on 24/01/1997 nobody appeared on behalf of the employer, nor the employer themselves appeared. On the next date i. e. on 3/03/1997, the workman filed his written statement alongwith an affidavit and employer emained absent on that date also when the eimployer had notice of the proceedings therefore on 3/03/1997 in order to proceed ex-parte the next date was fixed 13/03/1997. But on the next date i. e. on March 13, 1997, again nobody has appeared on behalf of the employer. The Tribunal therefore considered the case on merit and has found that the workman concerned who was employed on 1/09/1992 and continued service with the employer till 7/08/1995 when his service were terminated and that he has not been paid his wages for the period from 4/03/199 5/08/1995 and further that before terminating his services the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the act, have not been complied with. ( 4 ) THE Tribunal after considering the material evidence on record have come to the conclusion and recorded a finding that the workman concerned has worked for more than 240 days on the previous day i. e. on 7/08/1995 when his services were terminated by the employer without complying with the provision of Section 6-N of the Act. ( 4 ) THE Tribunal after considering the material evidence on record have come to the conclusion and recorded a finding that the workman concerned has worked for more than 240 days on the previous day i. e. on 7/08/1995 when his services were terminated by the employer without complying with the provision of Section 6-N of the Act. The Tribunal has further found that the employer have put in appearance on 13/03/1997 only and application for setting aside the ex-parte award has been filed on 29/03/1997 and 1/04/1997, but the employer remained absent and have not pressed even the application for setting aside the ex-parte award dated 13/03/1997. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal has rejected the applications for setting aside the award moved by the employer and maintained the award dated 13/03/1997 holding that the services of the workman were arbitrarily and illegally terminated and that the workman concerned is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages with continuity of service. It is this order/award, which is under challenge before this Court by the employer. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-employer tries to argue that the tribunal has committed manifest error of law in refusing to set aside the ex-parte award and further rejecting the application dated Marc 13/03/1997 filed by the petitioner-employer. The tribunal in paragraph 4 of the award has categorically stated that even on this application the date fixed was 1/04/1997, but nobody has put in appearance to press these two applications filed on 29/03/1997 and 1/04/1997, which were numbered as Paper Nos. 12-A and 13-A. In this view of the matter, the tribunal has refused to set aside the order proceeding ex-parte and rejected the applications for setting aside the ex-parte award. ( 6 ) IN view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order/orders, if any, stands vacated. However, the parties shall bear their own costs. .