ANJANI KUMAR, J. This writ petition was heard by this Court and after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, it was dismissed on 31st March, 2003 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid petition. 2. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,1950, the petitioners- employers have challenged the impugned award dated 13th December, 1995, which is an ex- parte award, passed by the Prescribed Authority, Labour Court, Varanasi in adjudication case No. 108 of 1995, and the order dated 8th November, 1996 rejecting the recall application dated 2nd November, 1996 to set aside the ex-parte award, copies whereof are annexed as Annexures-3 and 12 to the writ petition. 3. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the following dispute was referred to before the Labour Court for adjudication. 4. From the recital of the statement of fact under the award, it is clear that on receipt of the reference, the Labour Court issued notices to both the parties on 15th June, 1995 fixing 4th August, 1995, which was served upon the petitioners-employers on 27th July, 1995. On the dated fixed, the representative of the workman concerned was present, but nobody appeared on behalf of the employers and the next date was fixed as 30th August, 1995 by the Labour Court; on that date workman concerned asked for time, but nobody appeared on behalf of the employers and thereafter the next date was fixed as 21st September, 1995. Thereafter, the office of the Presiding Officer was vacant and now incumbent took charge on 24th November, 1995 and on the same day i. e. , on 24th November, 1995, fresh notice was issued to the employers fixing 13th December, 1995, which too was served upon the employers on 25th November, 1995 and an endorsement with Seal of Principal, Uma Electronics Institute, Varanasi was over there, but in-spite of that nobody appeared on behalf of the employers on 13th December, 1995. The workman concerned had already filed his written statement to which no reply was filed by the employers, therefore, the Labour Court has left no option, but to proceed to pass ex-parte award against the petitioners- employers. 5. The workman concerned had already filed his written statement to which no reply was filed by the employers, therefore, the Labour Court has left no option, but to proceed to pass ex-parte award against the petitioners- employers. 5. The Labour Court considered the case set up by the workman and since nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioners, therefore, the Labour Court gave ex-parte award and recorded a finding that the services of the workman concerned were terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short act ). The Labour Court held that the termination of services of the workman by the employers with effect from 20th August, 1993 was illegal and unjustified, therefore, directed for reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and full back wages. 6. After the aforesaid award, the workman concerned filed an application dated 22nd July, 1996, under Section 6-H (i) of the Act before the Labour Court, who issued notices on 19th September, 1996 fixing 27th September, 1996 to verify the amount claimed by the workman. This notice was also served upon the petitioners-employers who in turn, filed an application on 2nd November, 1996 for recall of the aforesaid ex-parte award and the affidavit in support thereof and also an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and sought time for bringing an interim order from the competent Court. The employers-petitioners set up their case that they have not received any notice from the Labour Court, therefore, nobody could appear on their behalf. The Labour Court considered the case set up by the employers in their application for recall of the ex-parte award and recording finding with regard to the service of notice that employers in the award proceeding as well as in the subsequent proceeding, were served with the notice issued by the Labour Court. The employers have stated that no counter-affidavit has been filed by the workman concerned to the affidavit filed by the employers, therefore, the statement made in the affidavit should be taken to be true and the ex- parte award should be recalled. 7. The employers have stated that no counter-affidavit has been filed by the workman concerned to the affidavit filed by the employers, therefore, the statement made in the affidavit should be taken to be true and the ex- parte award should be recalled. 7. The Labour Court considered the case set up by the employers and also gone through the decisions relied upon by the employers and proceeded even assuming that the notice was not served upon the employers and it was stated that in their establishment, neither there is any office of the Chief Secretary, nor Principal, but this fact is not supported by a single sentence to the affidavit filed on behalf of the employers for setting aside the ex-parte award and further it has not been stated as to when they have acquired knowledge of the ex-parte award. The Labour Court further recorded a finding that it is clear from the peon book of the office of the Labour Court that the copy of the award itself was sent by the Labour Court through its peon, which was received by the employer on 27th June, 1996, therefore, at least on 27th June, 1996 they must acquired knowledge about the award, but even then they did not turn up and they put in appearance only when the notice for execution of the award was sent to them. The Labour Court has considered all aspects of the matter set up by the employers in their application and the affidavit filed in support thereof for recall of the aforesaid ex-parte award and recorded a finding that the case set up by the petitioners-employers cannot be accepted and therefore, recall application for setting aside the ex- parte award is rejected, as already stated above. 8. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners- employers have reiterated the same arguments, which were advanced before the Labour Court with regard to the knowledge of the ex-parte award. This Court in exercise of its powers declines to interfere with the findings recorded by the Labour Court while refusing to set aside the ex-parte award, as the order passed by the Labour Court refusing to set aside the ex-parte award is a reasoned order and also no infirmity or illegality could be pointed by learned Counsel for the petitioners so as to warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,1950. In this view of the matter, the order refusing to set aside the ex-parte award deserves to be up held and is hereby upheld. After rejecting the contention of the learned Counsel for the employers with regard to the refusal to set aside the ex-parte award, no infirmity could be pointed out in the impugned ex-parte award dated 13th December, 1995, therefore, the award of the Labour Court also deserves to be up held and is hereby up held. 9. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition is dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .