Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The second respondent was working as Salesman under the appellants since 25th June, 1983 on a monthly salary of Rs.150/-. The Manager took charge from him on 21st June, 1985 and his services were terminated on the same day. Being aggrieved, the workman moved before the Labour Court, Vellore in I.D. No.1146 of 1993. The Management appeared, filed the counter statement and contested the case. While the Management pleaded that the workman was a Trainee Salesman on a monthly stipend of Rs.150/-, it was alleged that during inspection on 19th May, 1985 by the Regional squad, the Management found shortage of cash and shortage of following commodities:- (i) Boiled rice (fine variety) – 2.500 kgs. (ii) Raw rice (fine variety) – 25.500 kgs. (iii) Kerosene 5 litres (iv) 50 kg. empty guny bags (9) Sugar bags 50 Kgs. (4) It was also found that Bill Nos.613561 to 613568 were missing. There was no entries in the daily chittas for any sale under the bills. It was also pleaded that the workman had admitted that he had taken away 8 original bills. 2. The workman took specific plea that when the Manager took charge from him on 21st June, 1985, the date on which his services were terminated, the Manager inspected the shop and there being no shortage, informed the workman that he could go and get another posting from the Regional Manager. Thereafter, no posting order was issued. So, he had to request for reinstatement. It was specifically pleaded that no charge sheet was issued or served; no enquiry Officer was appointed; workman was not given any opportunity to refute any charge or defend him and without giving any such opportunity, his services were terminated. 3. The Management though made allegations against the workman in the counter statement, before the Labour Court, it failed to lead any exhibit. No witness was produced in support of the allegations as were made in the counter statement. On the other hand, the workman, while examining himself, produced four documentary evidence, which were marked as Exs.W1 to W4. On appreciation of evidence and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Presiding Officer answered the questions in favour of the workman by award dated 15th September, 1995 and reinstated him with backwages and continuity of service. On the other hand, the workman, while examining himself, produced four documentary evidence, which were marked as Exs.W1 to W4. On appreciation of evidence and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Presiding Officer answered the questions in favour of the workman by award dated 15th September, 1995 and reinstated him with backwages and continuity of service. Learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the fact that the termination of service was made due to the allegations levelled against the workman, but no departmental enquiry was initiated, refused to interfere with the award. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant (Management) submitted that the workman was an apprentice and therefore, no proceedings were required to be initiated. However, we are not inclined to accept such submission as no person can be punished unheard even if he is an apprentice. From the stand taken by the Management, it is clear that the services of the workman, were terminated not because of unsatisfactory performance, but, because of the allegations as made in the counter statement. In the circumstances, no interference is called for either in the award or in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. There being no merit, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.