JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 11.05.1998, dismissing the writ petition . By the writ petition, the appellant had challenged the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, under the Shop and Commercial Establishments Act, directing reinstatement of the respondent, along with back wages. 2. The necessary facts are that the workman was discharged, in violation of the provisions of Section 28-A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, whereupon he filed an application before the Prescribed Authority, thereupon, the present appellant was called, who did not appear despite service, and exparte judgment was passed on 24.10.94. Then on 24.11.94, prayer was made for setting aside the exparte order, which application has been dismissed by the learned Authority, vide order dated 02.01.95. 3. Both these orders , dated 24.10.94 and 02.01.95, have been challenged in the writ petition . It was contended before the learned Single Judge that since the workman had not completed six months' service, the complaint was not maintainable. This aspect was considered in detail, and a finding of fact has been recorded that workman had completed six months. Then it was noticed that the present appellant did not file any reply, even though he appeared in pursuance to the notice given by the authority. It was noticed that on 19.05.94, nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant, and the matter was proceeded exparte. Thereafter, on the same day, power was filed by the counsel for the petitioner but no application was filed for recalling the order of proceeding exparte, no documentary evidence was produced. Thus, if the petitioners chose to allow the proceedings to proceed exparte, no interference can be made. 4. Having gone through the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, and the two orders dated 24.10.94 and 02.01.95, in our view, the finding about the workman having completed six months' service, is a pure finding of fact, and no sufficient cause having been made out, for setting aside the exparte proceedings, or the exparte order, inasmuch as on 19.05.94 itself, 'Vakalatnama' was filed and, thereafter no steps were taken for setting aside the exparte proceedings, despite being aware of the fact that the proceedings have been ordered to be exparte , the order dated 02.01.95 has also rightly been passed. This appeal is devoid of any merit, and is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******